The Labour Government

[mancityvstoke]

They pissed pensioners off right from the start, they are the sort who never forget.

A Labour Govt who believe living on less than £12,000 a year is easy street in this cost of living crisis. Then who lie and say you are all entitled to Pension credit top ups if you're skint.

Less than £12k a year IS skint but still not entitled to pension credit.

Pension Credit

Pension Credit is extra money for pensioners to bring your weekly income up to a minimum amount - what you'll get, apply, eligibility.

www.gov.uk

 

[stonerblue]

They pissed pensioners off right from the start, they are the sort who never forget.

Err.........

 

[metalblue]

I have been a very vocal left wing figure on here for 20 years

I despise this so called Labour government

Leftie tosser ;)

 

[metalblue]

Err.........

Haha, deserves more than a like that

 

[mackenzie]

That ain't necessarily so. They could still usually get poor relief same as others "here" (why should they be treated differently from other British citizens?). There were attempts to "remove" (deport) people back to Ireland but it often more trouble than it was worth.

* The change in publio opinion was partly manifested in the recognition, in some great centres of population, that it was not economical to incur the expense of removal of the unsettled paupers. As early as 1817 some of the London parishes were not troubling about removals (The Old Poor Law, by S. and B. Webb, 1927, p. 339). In 1862 it could be said that “ it has been customary in Manchester to relieve the indigent Irish from the Poor Rate, though they have obtained no settlement . . . the number . . . thus relieved amounts to two-thirds of the settled paupers ” (Four Periods of Public Education, by Sir J. Kay-Shuttleworth, 1862, p. 176). On April 8, 1866, the Poor Law Board seriously warned the Boards of Guardians that any general exercise of the power of removal might “ cause suffering, expense and other inconvenience without ensuring any corresponding benefit"

[English Poor Law History, PART II : THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS, by Sidney and Beatrice Webb; 1922]

My Irish ancestors came because the husband had the assurance of work on the Manchester Ship Canal. There was some kind of poor relief already in Ireland ( indeed, when the husband eventually went back to Ireland he spent 18 months in the workhouse due to illness before eventually being discharged). His wife remained here and continued to work until she died.
They didn't come because they could get something that was unavailable in their own country, they came because there was plenty of work. There was no real cushion of a period of time of being supported financially until they were considered job ready. They were already job ready and no expectations that they would be supported. And, of course, no NHS.
Of course, my own family's story is just one example and there are no doubt other stories that might be different.
What I was trying to point out is that coming to the UK now is vastly different to what the country once offered.
People bang on about how migration has helped over the centuries but we are now in a different world.

 

[bluevengence]

I have been a very vocal left wing figure on here for 20 years

I despise this so called Labour government

I left the Labour party when Blair amended clause iv...down ward spiral to the tories ever since.

 

[Vic]

My Irish ancestors came because the husband had the assurance of work on the Manchester Ship Canal. There was some kind of poor relief already in Ireland ( indeed, when the husband eventually went back to Ireland he spent 18 months in the workhouse due to illness before eventually being discharged). His wife remained here and continued to work until she died.

I take it she wasn't building canals.

They didn't come because they could get something that was unavailable in their own country, they came because there was plenty of work.

Why would they have left Ireland if plenty of work was available there?

There was no real cushion of a period of time of being supported financially until they were considered job ready.

Because they didn't have to apply for asylum in order to work.

They were already job ready and no expectations that they would be supported.

So should we ask asylum seekers, "What work can you do?" and get them doing it?

And, of course, no NHS.
Of course, my own family's story is just one example and there are no doubt other stories that might be different.
What I was trying to point out is that coming to the UK now is vastly different to what the country once offered.

How different? When not enough Brits will pick or pack food, work in construction - or in the NHS...

People bang on about how migration has helped over the centuries but we are now in a different world.

Post-colonial?

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

It wasn’t aimed at you Russ. We might rarely agree politically on many things mate but you never waiver on your opinions, ever.

This isn’t a Labour government, that much is clear. Had these policies been announced by a Tory government this place would have erupted and rightly so. The silence from many though who would have erupted is embarrassingly deafening.

There doesn’t seem to be much difference between labour and the tories anymore. We basically have no alternative view/ party

 

[BigJoe#1]

There doesn’t seem to be much difference between labour and the tories anymore. We basically have no alternative view/ party

No.... We're not allowed one. The current political class won't allow it. Nor allowed alternative views as is demonstrated by many on here and PR is out of the question. They're running scared and fear true democracy.

 

[BigJoe#1]

There doesn’t seem to be much difference between labour and the tories anymore. We basically have no alternative view/ party

Whilst agreeing entirely with your comment i seem to detect that whilst there is not much difference between Labour and the Tories, there does seem to be a chasm developing between the Labour Party (Labour voters) and the Parliamentary Labour Party (Labour MP's).... though I do believe some significant fractures are starting to appear within the Parliamentary Labour Party.

 

[mackenzie]

I take it she wasn't building canals.



Why would they have left Ireland if plenty of work was available there?



Because they didn't have to apply for asylum in order to work.



So should we ask asylum seekers, "What work can you do?" and get them doing it?



How different? When not enough Brits will pick or pack food, work in construction - or in the NHS...



Post-colonial?

1. Seamstress and in the cotton mill. Two jobs at the same time. One from home and the other a long hard day.

2. They left because they had the offer of work here. His father had been a provisions dealer and when he died his widow took it over and was left to run the establishment so my ancestors came here to earn money to send back and help towards the remaining children. Plus, there was some suspicion he got out of Dublin due to Republican sympathisers lying low for a while after the Phoenix Park assassination.

3. Irrelevant. There were no other options than working.

4. Let me know what jobs people who are unvetted, not documented, no official papers and who don't speak English can do.

5. I agree. There are plenty of people born here who need to be reeducated on what the welfare state is for and how work and contributing to society is both meaningful and fulfilling.
And there are plenty of other people just like them, all over the world.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

and who told you that?

Everyone has a mobile phone these days, I guess you hadn't noticed? ;-)

 

[Hertzblue]

My Irish ancestors came because the husband had the assurance of work on the Manchester Ship Canal. There was some kind of poor relief already in Ireland ( indeed, when the husband eventually went back to Ireland he spent 18 months in the workhouse due to illness before eventually being discharged). His wife remained here and continued to work until she died.
They didn't come because they could get something that was unavailable in their own country, they came because there was plenty of work. There was no real cushion of a period of time of being supported financially until they were considered job ready. They were already job ready and no expectations that they would be supported. And, of course, no NHS.
Of course, my own family's story is just one example and there are no doubt other stories that might be different.
What I was trying to point out is that coming to the UK now is vastly different to what the country once offered.
People bang on about how migration has helped over the centuries but we are now in a different world.

Hi Mackenzie,
You are absolutely correct, we are in a different world to that in which your Irish ancestors ( and mine) came to this country, the provision of the Welfare state makes it so and completely alters the impact / benefit of migration.
Plenty has been written about this but conveniently ignored by our politicians.
Here are some excerpts from Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman on this subject. He is talking about USA in this instance and talking as an economist who ideologically was very pro- immigration....



He described this relationship of immigration and welfare as " obvious" and to you and I it is . My view is that if we continue as we are immigration will test our Welfare state to destruction.
As I have said in earlier posts, if any of our political parties want to put to the electorate that they will allow immigration to continue as is but that in consequence that will mean a reduced provision of Welfare, Health care , social housing etc for all of us and the people vote for it , then that's fine but they never have and I don't believe they ever will.
Instead they tell us that we must have immigration because we have jobs to be filled ... and in the same breath allow ever increasing millions to be consigned to worklessness and benefits plus of course soon AI will be coming along and replacing lots of jobs !
That said I do not blame immigrants for coming , who wouldn't ? Nor would I blame the workless for choosing to be so if they are no better off going to work. The problem as you alluded to is our Welfare system.

 

[Hertzblue]

How different? When not enough Brits will pick or pack food, work in construction - or in the NHS..

What happened to " He who does not work , shall not eat " Vic ?

 

[meltonblue]

There doesn’t seem to be much difference between labour and the tories anymore. We basically have no alternative view/ party

Depends how much people really follow politics. There’s still quite a big difference, albeit not
as much as a lot of Labour members or voters would want to see. The overlap is nowhere near as big as it used to be between them though, given the one nation conservatives don’t really exist anymore.

 

[hilts]

Depends how much people really follow politics. There’s still quite a big difference, albeit not
as much as a lot of Labour members or voters would want to see. The overlap is nowhere near as big as it used to be between them though, given the one nation conservatives don’t really exist anymore.

Your definition of a big difference may differ to others though, I'm trying to think of any large change in direction since the election. If the Tories were in would things be hugely different?

 

[meltonblue]

Your definition of a big difference may differ to others though, I'm trying to think of any large change in direction since the election. If the Tories were in would things be hugely different?

It will do, as I said it depends how much people follow politics. There’s policies they’ve put in that the tories would never have done (for good and for bad).

It’s not hugely different as both mainstream parties will want to maintain how parliament currently operates. That’s why I said quite a big difference rather than huge. If people wanted huge, don’t vote for a mainstream party :)

I can’t think of too many shared objectives in both manifestos.

 

[mackenzie]

Hi Mackenzie,
You are absolutely correct, we are in a different world to that in which your Irish ancestors ( and mine) came to this country, the provision of the Welfare state makes it so and completely alters the impact / benefit of migration.
Plenty has been written about this but conveniently ignored by our politicians.
Here are some excerpts from Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman on this subject. He is talking about USA in this instance and talking as an economist who ideologically was very pro- immigration....
View attachment 151397
View attachment 151398

He described this relationship of immigration and welfare as " obvious" and to you and I it is . My view is that if we continue as we are immigration will test our Welfare state to destruction.
As I have said in earlier posts, if any of our political parties want to put to the electorate that they will allow immigration to continue as is but that in consequence that will mean a reduced provision of Welfare, Health care , social housing etc for all of us and the people vote for it , then that's fine but they never have and I don't believe they ever will.
Instead they tell us that we must have immigration because we have jobs to be filled ... and in the same breath allow ever increasing millions to be consigned to worklessness and benefits plus of course soon AI will be coming along and replacing lots of jobs !
That said I do not blame immigrants for coming , who wouldn't ? Nor would I blame the workless for choosing to be so if they are no better off going to work. The problem as you alluded to is our Welfare system.

That's a great post, and thanks for sharing the quote.
I also welcome anyone who wants to work and contribute. It would be stupid not to, all things considered.
Yet there has to be some common sense involved.

It just seems to get to the point, on social media, that some people have a tendency to double down on defending a point of view to the nth degree, where common sense is thrown out of the window. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that some of the dialogue gets an underlying vibe where it's almost "British people are lazy racist bastards and asylum seekers are innocent victims with a heart of gold...."

I find it tiresome and frankly, a bit pathetic.

 

[hilts]

It will do, as I said it depends how much people follow politics. There’s policies they’ve put in that the tories would never have done (for good and for bad).

It’s not hugely different as both mainstream parties will want to maintain how parliament currently operates. That’s why I said quite a big difference rather than huge. If people wanted huge, don’t vote for a mainstream party :)

I can’t think of too many shared objectives in both manifestos.

I gave up on what parties put in their manifestos a while back mate. I did think this lot would have more about them though.

 

[meltonblue]

I gave up on what parties put in their manifestos a while back mate. I did think this lot would have more about them though.

I’ve not given up all hope with them yet. They’ve been out of power for 14 years and have very very little experience of actually running a government.

I had limited hope in the first place though!