The Left's way forward

Djen is a Socialist, I am a Lib Dem supporter ( but was glad that the Conservatives got in) Anya and others are Labour supporters, and we can all
Do the rough and tumble of a bit of political debate without telling each other that people may die because of their views.If you can't understand that
Then there is something wrong with you.

gracesgran,As Anya says, you intended the post to be offensive , the lowest level of political debate I have ever encountered on here!

Are you in my head Anya, that you know what I intended? There is a downside to the current policies and if "you" embrace them hook line and sinker then "you" must be aware of, prepared for, and think whether the downside is worth it.

Back to the policies! I think the hardest to justify is the withdrawing of benefits for any third child born after 2017 and I wonder if we will see a huge increase in abortions as the poorest families look at being unable to manage. We all know that some children may not be planned and facing the idea of having a child you cannot afford may lead to women having to take impossible decisions.

What may be the way forward is to elect someone who could provide leadership and charge them with regard to principles and ideology perhaps like Corbyn but take time to elect a leader that will win an election.

* Gracesgran* your post saying that Roses implied that "you think it worth the poverty of many and, possibly the deaths of some, in order to get to that point" is indeed bang out of order and had better been left unsaid.

The post was indeed offensive and intended, by you, to be so. No amount of trying to wriggle out of it by suggesting otherwise can alter that fact.

are being

Rosesarered I do understand that taking offence is a way of countering arguments but it really isn't a good one. Also "emotional nonsense" could be said to be pretty personal and also a remark made with no evidence yet again.

"You" is plural as well as singular and I do believe that those proposing the reduction of debt at the rate GO is are doing that purely for ideological reasons and without thought for the effects. I have seen no decent economic reason for doing it this way. Perhaps, rather than your immediate reaction to be to take offence and get personal with those who challenge particular views, putting the argument for why it is economically and humanely a sensible way forward would have more effect.

I have just seen a piece on how many children being abandoned at birth in Greece - just one effect of austerity. We are not Greece and we never were; there is no justification for the level of thoughtless austerity proposed. Thought-through changes and even cuts are probably needed but the Conservatives have always put people second and money first.

Has Labour finally got it right? :
bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/index.php/city-news/955-reviewed-labour-unveils-its-new-colours.html

From BBC News :
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World at One, Mr Burnham, who was a critic of the plan to abstain, said he had persuaded Ms Harman to adopt a "compromise" position by putting forward a "reasoned amendment" opposing some of the bill's measures.
That amendment, which would have derailed the legislation, was defeated by 308 votes to 208.
"I still do not believe that that was a strong enough position," Mr Burnham said. "As leader I would have opposed this bill last night."
But he said he was "not prepared to split the party and make the job of opposition even harder".

I think the job of opposition just got a lot harder for a party that doesn't seem to know what it's doing.

When do employers start paying the new minimum wage? Shouldn't that be brought in first?

Another thought - I just read that Labour's amendment, to not give the Bill a 2nd reading, was defeated by 308 votes to 208, but I can't find any info on why that was. Did some of Labour's MPs abstain on that too? Or did they just not turn up at all?

Cuts to the welfare bill do not have to be found. They will happen naturally once employers start paying the real living wage.

A government that thinks it can change the meaning of the living wage and the meaning of poverty is a sick, cynical government.

For those who still do not know how to vote.

voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/07/21/these-are-the-labour-mps-who-ran-away-when-their-constituents-needed-them/

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/07/21/it-is-time-to-name-the-benefits-cap-for-what-it-is-economic-cleansing/

Consequences for the poor and vulnerable, soon?
For heavens sake, do you really realise what you say?

whitewave post 21.01

This is what is bothering me.
A lot of Labour voters[not meaning gransnet voters] are wanting to rigidly stick to their left wing principles for many more years.
Meanwhile...

Talk and principles could have consequences for the poor and vulnerable.

Sorry, you said that you helped to collect for your local food bank but it goes against the grain.

DJ I thought you once posted that you helped out at your local food bank some weekends? Sincere apologies if I have mistaken you for another.

You are also bang out of order to say "that does seem to imply that you think it worth the poverty of many and possibly the deaths of some"
GracesGran , what a disgraceful thing to say.

The food banks are not just appearing in the last five years, they were here in the Blair/Brown years too.

emotional nonsense GracesGran. where would you find cuts to the welfare bill?It has to be found.Or would you go on paying out ever higher and higher?

But the question is "if cuts are necessary" or certainly if they are necessary to the extent that the Conservatives want to take them. You seem to have swallowed the Conservative monetarism, hook, line and sinker rosesarered, which is fine if that is what you want but personally I think there is a balance to be struck. You say "If the country does well in the next five years, then there will be more money for those who really need it" but that does seem to imply that you think it worth the poverty of many and, possibly the deaths of some, in order to get to that point.

I for one would agree that changes need to be made but the Conservatives seem only to want to inflict the savings on one part of the population. When you say "there will be cuts all across the board because there has to be" that is not really true. There will be cuts because the Conservatives have decided there will be; they are extreme purely for ideological reasons.

news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1325098-snp-take-over-westminsters-opposition-benches-in-budget-protest/

The neighbourhood groups, churches etc did that because there was a need caused by government policies.

Food banks have been around for a while in lots of countries. no Government set them up, it was neighbourhood groups/churches etc.

Tegan, food banks weren't introduced by this or any other government.