Anyone worried about protecting the welfare state should concentrate on kicking out the Tories

18th March, 2015 8:51 pm

As a member of the Work and Pensions Select Committee I get to see up close the Government’s dissolute, ideological approach to social security – whether it’s Iain Duncan Smith’s comments that he wants to limit child benefit to the first two children to instigate ‘behaviour change’ (that’s code for he doesn’t want poor people to have more than 2 children), Esther McVey’s response to Gill Thompson whose diabetic brother, David Clapson died after he was sanctioned, that it was ‘complicated’, or the fact that by 2018, 3.8m people with disabilities will have lost nearly £24bn of social security support.

I could go on about their dehumanising and ineffective revamped Work Capability Assessment process, terminally ill people being made to wait months for the financial support they need in the most dire of circumstances and the dramatic increase in people being made homeless as a result of the cruel bedroom tax, and so much more besides. Or highlight the fact that as part of Universal Credit roll-out, this Tory/Lib Dem Government are piloting sanctions for people who are in-work but are on low pay and in receipt of tax credits, which will be the next scandal if they are allowed back into power.

But what I and so many find deeply offensive is the pejorative language that’s been used by this Government as they refer to people receiving social security as shirkers and scroungers. This belies the evidence and the Government and anyone else who wilfully misrepresents the facts should be ashamed of themselves.

That’s why I was disappointed to see some of the responses to my colleague, Rachel Reeves’ interview in the Guardian earlier this week. Rachel, like me, is passionate about ensuring a model of social welfare which retains its principles of inclusion, support and security for all; protecting anyone of us should we fall on hard times, assuring us of our dignity and the basics in life, and giving us a hand up, not a hand out. In her own words she told the Guardian interviewer:

“The welfare state was always supposed to be there to protect people in times of need, whether that was because they lost their job, or became disabled, or they had a child that was disabled, to help with the cost of childcare, to help you when you are no longer earning because you’re retired. That’s what the welfare state was created for. I want to ensure the welfare state is there for my children and their children in the future”

​As part of Labour’s commitment to this approach, she has promised to end the target-driven sanctions culture in Job Centres, reform the work capability assessment to a fairer, more holistic assessment process, and scrap the bedroom tax which hits more than 400,000 people, two thirds of whom are disabled. We know only too well how this cruel policy has affected people – carers who need an extra bedroom, and disabled families who need extra space for equipment – with many now struggling to stay in their home.

Rachel Reeves 2014-05-29 08-10-37

Labour will also guarantee a job for everyone who has been long-term unemployed, and we will end the scandal of low pay which is seeing 6.6 million people in working families living in poverty, by increasing the national minimum wage and helping more employers pay a living wage through tax rebates.

As Rachel Reeves has said before, Labour was​ a party born of the self-respect and solidarity of working communities. We want people to be able to go out to work and earn a living for themselves and their families. We are the only party that can deliver this. Another five years of the Tories will mean more hardship, more low pay and a more unequal economy that only benefits a few at the top. Now more than ever, our focus should be on making sure they don’t get that opportunity.

It you look at the policies we will put in place if we win the General Election on May 7, it couldn’t be clearer. We have a better plan for a better future, for everyone in Britain – whether working or unemployed, old or young, and regardless of disability, gender or race.

Debbie Abrahams is Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth

Value our free and unique service?

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

If you can support LabourList’s unique and free service then please click here.

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • Tubby_Isaacs

    Well done, Debbie.

    i don’t think she’s up to the job if she can drop a clanger like she did, even taking into account the loading of the question. But fair to look at the overall policy. It’s a mixed bag, but nonetheless quite a lot better than the Coalition.

    • treborc1

      So a hammer is better then the coalition In do not see it that way. The problem is labour is making it on the Hoof one day they ;love the welfare state the next will get a hammering then labour is not the party of welfare, so if labouir is not the party of welfare I will not be voting for it, and asking an MP to explain what she means I think I know what Reeves means

  • robertcp

    This is more like it. Reeves deserved the stick she got because it was a stupid comment.

    • treborc1

      But you have to believe it, and as you can see it’s not Reeves saying it.

      • robertcp

        I was referring to what Reeves said.

  • MonkeyBot5000

    Rachel Reeves said, “We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work.”

    I get £50 in housing benefit each month because I don’t get paid enough despite working full time. I have also been unemployed in the past. If the Labour party doesn’t represent people like me, what the hell are you for and why should I vote for you?

    • Doug Smith

      You shouldn’t vote for her/Labour.

      Throw their contempt for you right back at them: hit them in the ballot box.

      • MonkeyBot5000

        Who am I going to vote for instead?

        Tories won’t help me because they’re Tories.
        LibDems won’t help me because they have no power.
        Labour won’t help me because they want to look like Tories to get votes.
        UKIP want to increase the personal allowance to £12.5k which would help me, but everything else they want would hurt me.

        The only sensible option is wrapping my ballot paper around a brick and using it to beat any politician I meet into unconsciousness and then emptying their wallet.

        • Doug Smith

          You have to think long term.

          I’ll be voting for whichever party in my constituency opposes austerity (i.e. the transfer of wealth to the private sector) and TTIP (i.e. the stitching-up of business regulation in order to sideline the interests of ordinary people and silence their elected representatives).

          Labour supports both austerity and TTIP so, for me, Labour is a very definite no-no.

          Sure, the candidate I vote for most likely won’t be forming a government this time but we have to start somewhere.

          Remember, Labour in Scotland has gone from the mainstream to the margins in one electoral cycle.

          • MonkeyBot5000

            To be honest, I’ll probably vote UKIP out of spite. If no-one is prepared to give me political representation, I’ll just have to do whatever I can to make their lives unpleasant.

            Think of it as electoral monkey-wrenching.

          • Doug Smith

            Today, down the pub, I was talking to someone who said more or less the same. “I’ll probably vote UKIP” he said, “not because I support them but just to stick a finger up to Tories and Labour.”

          • treborc1

            I may vote Plaid I do not hate Immigrants that much to vote UKIP. Vote for the Greens for god sake

          • Doug Smith

            Yes, I live in England so the Greens get my vote.

          • treborc1

            To spite whom poor sodding immigrants who are trying to do what we are trying to live.

          • MonkeyBot5000

            They won’t get enough MPs to have any real power, but a few of them getting in would annoy the hell out of the established parties.

            It’s a bit more practical than sneaking barrels of gunpowder into the cellar.

          • treborc1

            I’ll take the gun powder..

          • MonkeyBot5000

            I’d prefer it, but I’m trying to be practical.

          • Nicholas Poulcherios

            Correct me here but he did say 2 years ago that he will NOT exclude a referendum if it is for the interest of the country. Cameron only cares for the Torie Party, nothing else Oh! yes…the marginals and the big ORGs.Com,and Party Donors. Give Ed. Miliband a strong support. Labour needs our support on this historic elections. With a strong Labour …Yes we can. Check his foreign policy and you will see I am right. Think again and Vote Labour for the best.

      • Nicholas Poulcherios

        Slow to anger and patient in tribulation… The policies matter because we shall insist they do matter to us.. So much so we should insist they take the oath! That much we care. Not personalities. You can not condemn all of the Labour party for one probably mistaken phrase of Rachel Reeves. Give Ed Miliband a strong hand. Its bad enough and sad enough now the Scots decided to go ballistic. They should vote Labour and safeguard their interests once and for all from Torie Electoral accidentals in the future!! For now if they really care for the UNION they should support Labour. How much intimidation is going on up there? Is a very big question.

    • So RR’s advice to those on benefits (aren’t we all in some ways on those?) , is that Labour isn’t the party for them.

      If everyone concerned takes her at her word, that’s going to mean a huge loss of votes for the Labour Party.

      If that isn’t a sackable offence for a Labour shadow minister, so close to an election, then what is?

  • Doug Smith

    The Labour Party has gone rotten. Reeves provides all the evidence you could want.

    • treborc1

      You get that when you move to the right.

  • CapBlackSK4

    Debbie should have the job. We need passionate people willing to stand up against this cruelty.

    • treborc1

      Debbie’s take on Progress site.

      What a shame it was not on a left leaning site.

      But with 30 per cent of the population undecided about social
      security – and so potentially persuadable – Labour must also be making
      constructive arguments about welfare. Analysis of British Social
      Attitudes survey data going back to the 1980s calls into question the
      claims that there is a decline in support for welfare. More than 90 per
      cent of people support increasing or keeping the same level of spending
      on health, education and social benefits. Trend data shows the British
      public are a good barometer of what is just, with their support for
      welfare spending increasing during the Tory administrations of the 1980s
      and 1990s and decreasing when Labour was in power, with support now
      rising again. Evidence shows that, when the purpose of social security
      is explained, who it is for, and why, far more people from all age
      groups are likely to support it.

      We have a tightrope to walk. Labour needs to be seen as economically
      competent but we also need to offer hope to those who are suffering now
      and make it clear that they will not be forgotten. We need to ensure
      welfare spending is not profligate, but in reforming our welfare system
      so it is fit for the 21st century we should look at the evidence. We
      must also remember why we developed our model of social welfare,
      protecting any one of us should we fall on hard times, assuring us of
      our dignity and the basics of life, and giving us a hand up, not a hand

  • David Dai Curthoys

    After 30yrs of voting labour rachel reeves has put me off..I got sevre breathing probs including copd and her comments like ids has made myself and others feel like we are worthless and better off dead..sack her

  • Grouchy Oldgit

    Who does speak for the dispossessed?

    • treborc1

      In Scotland the SNP, in England sadly the Greens, in Wales it’s Welsh labour just about, what a shambles.

    • Monkey_Bach
      • Dave Postles

        I think that being a ‘warrior for the dispossessed’ means that we are all entitled to a social housing kitchen without ridicule.

        • Monkey_Bach

          And each kitchen will be equipped with a four litre container of paraffin oil, Primus stove and a box of Swan Vestas no doubt.


  • treborc1

    “The welfare state was always supposed to be there to protect
    people in times of need, whether that was because they lost their job,
    or became disabled, or they had a child that was disabled, to help with
    the cost of childcare, to help you when you are no longer earning
    because you’re retired. That’s what the welfare state was created for. I
    want to ensure the welfare state is there for my children and their
    children in the future”

    It’s not what she said is it, and it’s like Miliband using Freeze not cap when on this site we all said what happens if it falls but labour of course did not think of that, it will never fall it will keep going up so you make an error which matters.

    Same for the living wage you make statement to the people who now expect a living wage and then you state you will give people £8 by 2020 that is a miserably low wage rise each year, but it means you have dropped the living wage another use of words you should not have said if you did not mean to go through with it.

    The problem is Cameron and Osborne are poor politicians they are weak and should be an easy target , but the fact is we have the silly games at PMQs in which you both have little fits of screaming at each other the people get turned off and the fact is your not getting the better of either of them.

    This country is in a mess in the main because you all fell in love with the banks and the financial sector , the bankers got away with murder and people on welfare people on low paid jobs people working for zero hour contract are paying the cost for the mess you all made, and to be honest banks will regain their place and become power houses again. And I would not be in the least bit surprises if we end up going through this all over again

    Not forgetting all those soldiers who fought and came back hurt injured with mental health issues also get welfare, I hear very little from labour about those people . We shall never forget them until the war is over of course ….

    What we need is a Red labour party not some BLue concoction from some Professor who thinks Immigration should be frozen that welfare is wrong and Union should be removed Blue labour . Red is the colour labour is the name…

  • I am from your political neck of the woods, and Michael Meacher used to be my MP when I lived in the old Oldham West constituency. If I still lived there I would grit my teeth and vote Labour as a vote for any other party only serves to let the Tories in.

    Luckily, I live in Edinburgh North and Leith, and will take great pleasure in voting to get Mark Lazarowicz out of office. If you see him, bloody well tell him that. Tell him that it’s nothing personal, it’s just that I have an alternative to your shower here.

    The only way that New Labour’s troughers are going to dance to a working class band is if they are forced to do it by the SNP.

    • bikerboy

      Do you work, and are you capable of doing so? Cheers.

      • No to both. I can barely walk these days. Why?

        • treborc1

          Well Biker is a full blown Tory, so for him can you crawl if so you can work at picking up litter with your teeth.

          • bikerboy

            Not at all. In your case, Robert, it’s patently clear the social state should look after you.

          • treborc1

            But not for somebody else the same old problem people say I’m disabled or sick and you say prove it. He has obviously been through medical and they have said he is.

          • Ah, but not a real to the manner born Tory, surely? More like an aspirational scrote who tries to keep his head above water and the aspidistra flying whilst the Bullingdon Brigade laugh at him when he is not around.

          • treborc1


        • bikerboy

          Because you say you are a claimant while raising a glass to us. If you are genuine then I have no problem with that. We all have a duty to mitigate our use of Free Stuff, that’s all.

          • MonkeyBot5000

            You do know that’s a still photo, right?

            It’s not a webcam showing us what he’s currently up to.

          • Monkey_Bach

            Eh? If you can lift a glass of brown liquid to shoulder level it stands to reason that you are capable of work? Since even gravely ill people would be able satisfy such a criterion as a rule I bet it ends up included in any revamp of the disgraceful and discredited Work Capability Assessment.


          • treborc1

            I cannot lift a pint of bitter above my head it never gets as far as my nose before it’s emptied , so this is a serious disability

  • Michelle

    Debbie it’s all well and good pointing out the good things Rachel said, but that doesn’t change the fact she said something deeply offensive and alienating, worthy of ids. If she hasn’t rushed in to apologise she should take a leaf from Emily Thornberrys book and resign.

  • Monkey_Bach

    Rachel Reeves is a bright girl who unfortunately is simultaneously and spectacularly politically maladroit. She should be kept out of the public eye and should never have been given a high profile position such as Shadow Secretary for Work and Pensions. It’s dispiriting to see Rachel stumbling, mumbling and being torn to shreds whenever she is interviewed or put under scrutiny.

    This is NOT a woman with an agile mind!

    There are far too many plodders like Reeves at the top of Labour’s hierarchy.


    • MonkeyBot5000

      Didn’t think that comment would last long.

      The truth hurts.

      • Monkey_Bach

        When I said “bright” I meant “academically capable”, e.g., she took Advanced level Pure Mathematics and Further Mathematics as a schoolgirl beating George Osborne by one math A level. Based on her actions however I would bet the farm that Reeves was never an imaginative, creative and effortlessly brilliant pupil but more of an unimaginative, slogging, dull-as-dishwater type of girl who passed her exams through exertion rather than innate talent or ability.

        As a politician Rachel Reeves is a lost cause.

        I hope she has a chance to spend more time with her family soon.

        Quite possibly in Stepford.


        • MonkeyBot5000

          …she took Advanced level Pure Mathematics and Further Mathematics as a schoolgirl beating George Osborne by one math A level.

          Not impressed. The last exam I took had a bachelors degree in physics as an entry requirement.

          I’ve forgotten more mathematics than the pair of them have ever learned.

          • Monkey_Bach


            As anybody who has studied for an undergraduate degree in mathematics, physics or engineering knows A level Pure Mathematics, Further Mathematics and Applied Mathematics ARE pretty elementary qualifications. I only pointed out that Reeves followed two such syllabi because most politicians, especially those who end up with PPE degrees, tend to be completely mathematically naive and largely innumerate. For example the current Prime Minister got where he is today based on A level passes in History of Art, History, and Economics with Politics.

            Which probably explains a lot.


          • Ray Edmiston

            It is well to remember that Education and Intelligence, are not ‘Cheeks of the same erse’!

    • treborc1

      She is an anker which ever way you spell it with a W or a B I know the way I would spell it.

      lets see how long this lasts.

  • Marco

    Reeves deserves the criticism she’s getting – what she said was cruel and ugly, every bit as bad as the ‘shirkers & workers’ language used by Osborne in the past. Why can’t Labour find someone who can speak passionately for the welfare state and it’s crucial importance? We can handle two ideas at once Rachel – we can defend the welfare state AND agree that getting people back to work is just as important as the safety net. And we should be making clear, over and over again, that the unemployed represent a small portion of the welfare budget. If Labour isn’t doing this, what on earth is it for? Don’t cede these arguments to the Tories! This is where Labour should be strong, compelling and passionate. Don’t let the Tories set the agenda, define the values, and position Labour – we’ve let that happen on welfare, immigration, and the economy. There’s not much left…

  • Daniel Speight

    The problem is the more those of the Blairite/Progress wing of the parliamentary party think that they need to win votes from the Tories by being more Tory themselves, the more the core vote loses interest and wanders off. I’m sure that if it all goes tits up in May they will be out there saying Labour under Miliband was too left wing which it fairly obviously isn’t. They have learned nothing from the state of the party in Scotland or the election loss in 2010. If they continue to have such a hold on the party then there doesn’t seem a good reason to suspect the party will survive beyond an election loss. PASOK anyone?

  • treborc1

    I worked for thirty three years and then had to stop well a fall of 47ft stopped me. But now all I get is your able to do something and when you ask what?, they say well something. Then all of a sudden they say what is that smell and you say sorry I’ve messed my self, and you watch them run out of the room and you think can you imagine doing that on a check out at Tesco. I’ve no control of my bladder or bowel with paraplegia yet ATOS found me fit to work thank god the Tories had put in place a review for those obvious cases which would win at appeal meaning the gravy train had ended for ATOS and they wanted out.

  • Markham Weavill

    I don’t understand why everyone is attacking just Rachel Reeves. The language of senior Labour politicians has for years differentiated between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor in just the same way as those at the top of the other main parties.

    It’s not only the Conservatives that are “nasty” so are a majority of the electorate. Opinion poll after opinion poll shows a majority of the electorate railing against the unspecified “scroungers”. We may pretend we have become a more caring society but actions speak louder than words.

    Kinnock said in the mid eighties don’t be sick, old, disabled or unemployed. I’d never have believed that it would be the case thirty years later. However, if anything its got worse as the children of the Thatcher years elect governments that care only for the individual not society as a whole.

    • MonkeyBot5000

      We’re attacking Rachel Reeves because she’s the one who has just made a statement that angers us and focused anger is more productive than complaining about politicians in general.

      These people are immune to reason, but generate enough rage and they get scared and may change their ways. Or at least learn to keep their mouths shut.

  • Malcolm McCandless

    Rachel Reeves’s comments proved that Labour deserve the label of ‘Red Tories’.

    It is little wonder that those with a social conscience are attracted to the SNP and the Greens.

    You don’t want to be poorly paid, sick, disabled, young unemployed or a state pensioner under a Labour government. You are the enemy in Labour eyes.

  • Dave Postles

    It’s not just Reeves. There are at least two issues: (i) deplorable policies; and (ii) incongruous appointments in the shadow cabinet; which are inter-related. We have Khan and Balls on their insistence not to reverse Tory cuts in those areas which affect the most vulnerable most (legal aid and local government). We have Hunt on the refusal to reinstate LEAs to their full status with coherent management of schools. We have Hunt as education spokesperson when he might be better placed at HE. We have Byrne at HE who is totally out of place. We have Reeves at WP who seems to have little empathy for ordinary people. Usw.

  • disqus_EJmqmmuw9G

    I appreciate your disappointment, though I doubt it matches mine as I read what RR had to say. I’m one of those who made a harsh, heartfelt, comment in response to her pronouncements.

    Much of what you say above is true of course. Under the current conditionality culture your 60 year old grandmother (having paid her NI for decades) can and does have life sustaining income sanctioned away.

    Now I didn’t expect RR to say Labour’s walking away from neoliberal Conditionality (the beast that facilitates) or indeed anything close to something quite so radically Green. But nor did I expect the very same immoral, ideological, culture you talk of above to be pointedly fed; witness how benefit recipients are portrayed as somehow lesser beings; as unworthy of Labour’s representation.

    Let’s be clear, as you politicians like to say, there is no bottom line law that maintains a right to a life sustaining income; if nothing else the last 5 years is proof of this. The unemployed, and now the underemployed/underpaid, are at the mercy of ever changing DWP directives; a prevailing culture which blames, victimises, and some go so far as to say, evidently kills.

    In effect, you are asking long-time labour voters like me, in the absence of any explicit intent to overhaul underlying law, to trust that Labour can, and will be nicer. Fair enough perhaps, I know Labour’s history and I can do complexity; the art of the possible and all that. However, RR’s interview, and your concern re the reaction it generated, indicates you want this trust while you continue to poisonously dabble in publically pouring scorn on benefit recipients; while you feed the beast.

    I don’t wish to be rude (again) so I’m left with nothing to say, other than I’m still looking for something to vote for.

  • fran cullen

    I have recently posted a comment using two of the same words
    ‘MonkeyBot5000’ above uses. These two words begin paragraph two
    of the above comment. —- Reeves. The rest of my comment was very
    However, LabourList has moderated/deleted my comment.
    Why – when the above comment has been published?
    Does Labourlist forbid the use of certain words by ladies ???
    No offence MonkeyBot. Glad to see your comment published.

    • MonkeyBot5000

      Maybe they only delete a person’s rudest comment.

      I had another comment deleted that was slightly ruder.

    • Monkey_Bach

      LabourList is powered by Disqus which has been set up to automatically filter out comments which contain expletives. It isn’t the moderators it’s the programming which is to blame.


      • MonkeyBot5000

        If it was hard coded, my comment would have been blocked as well.

        • Monkey_Bach

          It depends on what privileges you’ve been granted. Some of us can post hypertext links, have the liberty to use more colourful language than others, and do other fun things.

          My experiment mentioned above failed.

          I can’t post comments which contain expletives.


          • MonkeyBot5000

            I just tried to post a comment saying it was weird that I could say f*** but you can’t.

            Viewing it on Disqus, it says that it is waiting approval by LabourList.

          • Monkey_Bach


            (Something tells me that no SQL query used by Disqus will filter out that particular word on behalf of this particular site. Heh!)


          • MonkeyBot5000

            I like your style. I wonder if they’ll let me give you a banana.


            edit: Sweet! I don’t even need to use tags

          • Monkey_Bach

            Cheers! I was thinking about donating the empty banana skin to Rachel Reeves but as the woman seems eminently capable of making continual slip-ups off her own bat, in her case, I don’t think I’ll bother.


          • fran cullen

            Thanks Monkeybot5000.
            I have identified myself as a woman – not concealed identity.
            You have pen name.
            Just wondering. I see loads of
            male journalists writing
            f— in serious articles. I have
            never seen same word published from a female journalist. Can’t believe the latter don’t want to use the word sometimes

          • MonkeyBot5000

            I have identified myself as a woman – not concealed identity.

            Not sure what bearing that has on anything. We have no idea if that even is your real name – you could be a bloke called Dave for all we know.

            I, on the other hand, am definitely a robotic monkey.

  • Nicholas Poulcherios

    This reminds me of the battles of words for the mentally ill and the Lunacy Act God knows what age but it was an Act…Lunacy Asylums became Asylums for the Insane. They were built out in the country away from civilisation and human contact but relatives. Prejudice and fear remain for for more than 200 years if not more Once certified you even ceased to be a person! It took us years to fight the stigma and fought hard for the law to change and open doors. Then we had mental Asylums, then it was Mental Illness,then, Psychiatric illness and hospitals now its Psychological medicine. Let me tell you it was worse for the people with special needs. Being foreign I could not believe one could call another human being an Idiot, imbecile moron. The stigma and social attitude oozes out of such words..Thank goodness all changed with the New Mental Health Act..Terminology referred to severity in learning as E.S.N-Educationally Subnormal,Subnormal and Severely Sub.The Tories terminology shows you their party’s attitude to human diversities of need and the help needed by any country calling itself progressive…and made the Party caring for them making provisions for them,as incompetent to manage the Country’s Economy! They also ridiculed as… throwing money uselessly to benefit seekers, work shy,handout seekers..that is the Torie attitude to Human need and sad lives…Some fellow citisens were made to feel guilty, ashamed depressed and worse. Benefits it is a word I do not like to use myself.I like the word mobility Allowance.Why Benefits…most of them worked and paid taxes and insurance…it is part of their money. Socialists are by nature caring for their fellow citisens,and their is a kind of willingness creating a system to do just that…the Socialist Party Labour. Let us remember this and never feel ashamed to call ourselves socialists. Tony Blair was a Torie in hiding. So forget the past nightmares and move on positively for Labour,not a fragmented Kingdom. Cameron did not care for Wales and hold the purse as a kind of revenge?, the Labour party fought hard not only Wales needed more funding for the NHS but also Good Motor roads and Transport. He is a PM for Torie MPs, and Marginals. and I hope to God people see this. They planned it since Blair’s time and have been throwing this day in a day out for 5 years on Ed.Miliband’s face. I have never felt so disgusted of Torie Gov. as I felt for this current one…they really are the worst ever. So think of ways to MAXIMISE the Labour Party’s Votes,and events will emerge to solve our Regional methods so that we do not harm or penalise the party that will bring us positive changes. Five years they demonised ridiculed almost criminalised the word”welfare, benefits,etc”. They also linked the Labour party as wasting state resources and peoples’ hard earned money and called it the Welfare Party! We built Britain since the post war years in this manner and we have seen progress. What we need to teach in schools is this path of social progress,and the closing the poverty gap by taxation…distribution of wealth in socially acceptable democratic ways.The Tories abused their authority deliberately caused by choice more monetary problems and chaos, i.e the NHS… whilst they admitted to us publicly that they had no idea what this reorganisation was all about!! We must fight for the Labour Party to get back,have no illusions the immensity of such disaster should Cameron come in for 5 more years by 4 votes!!… and Coalition with UKIP. Double Nightmares. Vote Labour MAY 7th and we shall all sleep happy free from current nightmares.VOTE LABOUR.

    • MonkeyBot5000

      I’m not going to bother reading this if you can’t be bothered to use paragraphs.

      • Nicholas Poulcherios

        Thousands apologies my friend! I wish I knew how! Every time I attempt to do this I loose what I have written. You have no idea how irritating this is for me also. Took advantage of Gordon’s 3 months evening class for Senior citizens and I had a good introduction. But what I gained was to type, to e-mail,and with struggle to save. Can not plan margins, but I can do double space for my writing course. So here we are. Even twitting and Facebook I had to learn a little to help the Labour supporters since I can no longer do much footwork. The Task is more important than my limitations until May…In time I will improve in many other ways also with some help from my friends. Have a good evening,and thank you for your fair comment. Don’t allow this to stop you considering a Vote for Labour. It takes me ages to type need to improve in speed too.

        • MonkeyBot5000

          It takes you ages to type because you are an illiterate half-wit. Try to suck less, you’ll find it makes life easier.

        • MonkeyBot5000

          It’s the Enter/Return key.

          It’s the biggest button on your keyboard FFS.

    • Dave Postles

      O.k., thanks. I’ve read and will consider your points. Keep posting.

  • kevan cooper

    Rachel Reeve does support the Welfare State as her comment bellow indicates.

    “The welfare state was always supposed to be there to protect people in times of need, whether that was because they lost their job, or became disabled, or they had a child that was disabled, to help with the cost of childcare, to help you when you are no longer earning because you’re retired. That’s what the welfare state was created for. I want to ensure the welfare state is there for my children and their children in the future”

    But it’s Rachel Reeves and Labour’s new version of the “Welfare State”‘ that they now believe in and follows the “Party of the Working” and the “something for nothing” rhetoric they have adopted from the Conservatives that is the problem.

    You also forgot this other telling comment in the Guardian article from Mrs Reeves.

    “We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work,”

    And that fit’s in perfectly with what Mrs Reeves said on Sunday Politics in Feb 2014

    “What our welfare state was based on was that you pay into the system, you contribute to the system, before you’re able to draw down on benefits.”

    This new welfare state is nothing more than a pension fund and to say anything else would be a lie.

    Gone is the original concept that the welfare state that it is a COLLECTIVE endeavor, where everyone who’s able to pay in does so, for the benefit of those in need.

    Mrs Reeves and Labour will care as long as you pay in first.

  • Ray Edmiston

    This is Red Tories, from Rachel Reeves:

    “We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work,……. Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.”

    This is Socialism, from James Keir Hardie, founder of the ILP:

    ‘To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and
    the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service.’

    This is what the Labour Party was founded upon, and the ‘operative words’ being ‘and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible’, this includes the employed, unemployed, sick, pensioners and children!

    Just in case you don’t recognise it this is Clause IV of the ‘Labour Party’
    constitution, before it was removed by the Red Tories.

    The Red Tories left the people, back in the 80’s, now the people are leaving the Red Tories

    If you believe in Socialism, why are you voting ‘Red Torie’?

  • Another piece from Labour that focuses on working as the only legitimate aim, a habit they picked up from the Tories, and one that feels like a kick in the teeth to people like me who can’t work due to disability.


LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends