All very good policies, I wonder why the OP didn't choose to go with one of them instead
Possibly the OP was confused by the fact that they are a list of a think tank's suggestions "which they hope will be considered for inclusion in the 2015 Labour Party manifesto" And didn't realise that they had actually become Labour policy.
All very good policies, I wonder why the OP didn't choose to go with one of them instead
Good Policies? Well that is a matter of opinion
1.Labour will introduce a Mansion Tax on properties worth more than £2 million
The issues with a mansion tax have been discussed already.
7.Labour will introduce an Income Tax cut for 25 million workers by halving the lowest rate of Income Tax to just 10%
What like the one they abolished. Further the more bands you have the then end up being a disincentive as the effects of marginal tax rates kick in.
8.Labour would bring back the 50p rate for High Earners
Despite it showing that in this country at least amounts greater than 46p actually reduce the tax take forcing poorer tax payers to take a much greater share of the burden
12.New Fiscal Rules will require the budget to be balanced, and for National Debt, not just the deficit, to be reduced through the elimination of the structural deficit
Is this the structural deficit many Labour supporters claim does not exist and why does it need legislation? Why not go ahead and do it (or not create one in the first place)
17.Labour will close tax loopholes in the Construction Industry that currently cost taxpayers £500million a year
Specifics? What tax loopholes?
30.Labour will introduce a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee, giving long term unemployed persons a 6 month paid job with view to extending it
Is this even possible - without it basically being jobs in the public sector which will only make it even harder to reduce the deficit, as unless these jobs are actually required productivity will drop and so the cost of providing those services.
46.Labour will break up the big 6 Energy Companies and separate the power stations from the retailers
Was it not under Labour that they became the Big Six after consolidation in the market.
47.Labour will axe Ofgem & replace it with a tougher regulatory body with more powers to prevent Energy Price Rises
What stopped them in the 13 years they were in power?
68.Labour would set up a Financial Crime Unit, with increased staffing, in the Serious Fraud Office to enable the SFO to pursue bankers who break the law
Again what stopped them when they were in power - there was plenty of misdemeanours under Labours watch and despite setting up the Regulatory system - it failed miserably.
86.Labour will sack ATOS from carrying out Work Capability Tests
It was labour who engaged them in the first place
88.Labour will replace the Tory Benefit Cap with a Regional Benefit Cap that takes account of the excessive cost of rental housing in London
Granted this one seems sensible (even a broken watch is right twice a day)
91.Labour’s new Immigration Bill would compel Multi-Nationals to create 1 Apprenticeship place each time a skilled worker was hired from outside the EU
Again what stopped them when in power - this was said to Labour as long ago as 2001 when they decided importing workers was such a good wheeze - while speaking to Big Business and not one single worker representative organisation. Indeed as people's incomes were dropping and work vanishing they had the unmitigated gall to ask those organisations to go and prove there was no shortage. Ever got the feeling that some people are very angry with Labour.
92.Labour’s new Immigration Bill would ban Recruitment Consultancy firms from only hiring abroad & ban firms from paying temporary workers less than permanent staff
Agencies are not allowed to recruit from abroad indeed they were calling for this at the same time as Labour ramped up the Intra-Company Transfer scheme, and they actively considered it as well.
97.Labour will introduce a Women’s Justice Board that will seek to find ways of using restorative justice to lower reoffending and the rates of women jailed
Why not for both sexes and is this even legal under EU sex equality legislation?
Those things I missed out are because I don't know enough to comment. But this is a list of things Milliband thinks will be popular and takes no account either of practicality or their own record in office - why should we even believe it.
Now of course this will provoke a sneering response and perhaps a few personal insults thrown in as well,
but you DID use the words "irony" and "this is all Labour 'appear' to have on education"
Agree with the proposals or not I think most people can see that I have proven you wrong,
Now, as for "irony" care to outline some Tory proposals on education for us?
And he's off!
Let's take the first one (I am rather busy today):
As a minimum, Labour will cut Tuition Fees to £6,000 which by 2015 will amount to at least a 33% cut in tuition fees, but it is important to note that Labour has not yet given up on the idea of a Graduate Tax
The maximum university fee for students in England would be cut by a third under Labour, Ed Miliband has said. If the party was in power now it would reduce the cap from £9,000 to £6,000 to ease the debt burden on students, the Labour leader told Andrew Marr.
However, Mr Miliband refused to guarantee that the tuition fee cap would be in Labour's manifesto for the next general election in 2015.
- you appear to be unclear as to how politics work. Labour say this kind of thing - "if we were in power now, we'd do xyz, however we'd need to assess the situation again at the time of the election. It's not a firm policy for the next election, I'd afraid you've been hoodwinked by Labour.
1.Labour will introduce a Mansion Tax on properties worth more than £2 million
The issues with a mansion tax have been discussed already.
7.Labour will introduce an Income Tax cut for 25 million workers by halving the lowest rate of Income Tax to just 10%
What like the one they abolished. Further the more bands you have the then end up being a disincentive as the effects of marginal tax rates kick in.
8.Labour would bring back the 50p rate for High Earners
Despite it showing that in this country at least amounts greater than 46p actually reduce the tax take forcing poorer tax payers to take a much greater share of the burden
12.New Fiscal Rules will require the budget to be balanced, and for National Debt, not just the deficit, to be reduced through the elimination of the structural deficit
Is this the structural deficit many Labour supporters claim does not exist and why does it need legislation? Why not go ahead and do it (or not create one in the first place)
17.Labour will close tax loopholes in the Construction Industry that currently cost taxpayers £500million a year
Specifics? What tax loopholes?
30.Labour will introduce a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee, giving long term unemployed persons a 6 month paid job with view to extending it
Is this even possible - without it basically being jobs in the public sector which will only make it even harder to reduce the deficit, as unless these jobs are actually required productivity will drop and so the cost of providing those services.
46.Labour will break up the big 6 Energy Companies and separate the power stations from the retailers
Was it not under Labour that they became the Big Six after consolidation in the market.
47.Labour will axe Ofgem & replace it with a tougher regulatory body with more powers to prevent Energy Price Rises
What stopped them in the 13 years they were in power?
68.Labour would set up a Financial Crime Unit, with increased staffing, in the Serious Fraud Office to enable the SFO to pursue bankers who break the law
Again what stopped them when they were in power - there was plenty of misdemeanours under Labours watch and despite setting up the Regulatory system - it failed miserably.
86.Labour will sack ATOS from carrying out Work Capability Tests
It was labour who engaged them in the first place
88.Labour will replace the Tory Benefit Cap with a Regional Benefit Cap that takes account of the excessive cost of rental housing in London
Granted this one seems sensible (even a broken watch is right twice a day)
91.Labour’s new Immigration Bill would compel Multi-Nationals to create 1 Apprenticeship place each time a skilled worker was hired from outside the EU
Again what stopped them when in power - this was said to Labour as long ago as 2001 when they decided importing workers was such a good wheeze - while speaking to Big Business and not one single worker representative organisation. Indeed as people's incomes were dropping and work vanishing they had the unmitigated gall to ask those organisations to go and prove there was no shortage. Ever got the feeling that some people are very angry with Labour.
92.Labour’s new Immigration Bill would ban Recruitment Consultancy firms from only hiring abroad & ban firms from paying temporary workers less than permanent staff
Agencies are not allowed to recruit from abroad indeed they were calling for this at the same time as Labour ramped up the Intra-Company Transfer scheme, and they actively considered it as well.
97.Labour will introduce a Women’s Justice Board that will seek to find ways of using restorative justice to lower reoffending and the rates of women jailed
Why not for both sexes and is this even legal under EU sex equality legislation?
Those things I missed out are because I don't know enough to comment. But this is a list of things Milliband thinks will be popular and takes no account either of practicality or their own record in office - why should we even believe it.
I hadn't clicked on the link so I was referring specifically to the education policies that Old Hippy Guy had quoted in his post. As you say it is a matter of opinion and my opinion is that those policies(were they ever implemented )would be very good.
I hadn't clicked on the link so I was referring specifically to the education policies that Old Hippy Guy had quoted in his post. As you say it is a matter of opinion and my opinion is that those policies(were they ever implemented )would be very good.
But why? Why do you think they are a good idea. That is what debate is about. As I said for many of those policies listed - Labour did exactly the opposite when in power - so why - even where I think it is a good idea - would I believe them.
Take the proposal to ban agencies from employing people from abroad. I worked on the campaign to stop that being introduced under Labour the last time. It took considerable research to back up our claim that this would be wrong - even while the agency representative groups (such as REC and ATsCO) campaigned to be given the right. As it is they were not allowed - so here we have a proposal that is essentially meaningless.
But why? Why do you think they are a good idea. That is what debate is about. As I said for many of those policies listed - Labour did exactly the opposite when in power - so why - even where I think it is a good idea - would I believe them
Take the proposal to ban agencies from employing people from abroad. I worked on the campaign to stop that being introduced under Labour the last time. It took considerable research to back up our claim that this would be wrong - even while the agency representative groups (such as REC and ATsCO) campaigned to be given the right. As it is they were not allowed - so here we have a proposal that is essentially meaningless.
I didn't say I think all 100 policies are a good idea just the educational ones, and on reflection maybe not even all of them. As for the proposal to ban agencies from employing people from abroad, I disagree with it, most of the other Labour policy proposals you have listed I reserve judgment on because I don't know any of the details, as far as I am concerned as with the education proposals some sound okay and some don't.
I didn't say I think all 100 policies are a good idea just the educational ones, and on reflection maybe not even all of them. As for the proposal to ban agencies from employing people from abroad, I disagree with it, most of the other Labour policy proposals you have listed I reserve judgment on because I don't know any of the details, as far as I am concerned as with the education proposals some sound okay and some don't.
Agencies what you think they should be able to bring people from abroad?
Which leads to the same question - what is it about these policies that you like. Just to be fare here is my comments.
As a minimum, Labour will cut Tuition Fees to £6,000 which by 2015 will amount to at least a 33% cut in tuition fees, but it is important to note that Labour has not yet given up on the idea of a Graduate Tax
Like a lot of announcements the devil is in the detail Universities can only charge £9,000 if they open up ways of poorer students getting education. Otherwise they can only charge £6,000
Labour will halt Michael Gove’s Free School Expansion Programme. Not a single new Free School will be announced under a Labour government
One of the biggest problems with post war education has been interference from LEAs - as such I would prefer schools were free and able to teach people as they see fit, only constrained by the need to ensure that children get through exams and have the opportunity for a good career in their adult life.
Labour will abolish the Tory ban on Local Education Authorities opening State Schools once more
Are you sure that the 'ban' exists? Doing a Google search on 'Tories ban Local authorities from opening new schools' results in the same list in this thread. Even if it does are you sure this is not a way of reducing spending - which has been the theme of this parliament anyway.
Labour support the establishment of Parent-Led Academies where there is a shortage of school places
What is the substantive difference between Acadamies and Free schools which Labour have said they will not open?
Labour will require all teachers to pass an MOT style accreditation every 7-9 years passing them ‘Fit to Teach’
Not so keen on this - rather Teachers were subject to a continual checks, much like the current regime.
Labour will give 25 Hours of Free Childcare to parents with children aged 3 & 4
Labour will guarantee wraparound care from 8am-6am is available for every child in England
Sounds great, except on the one hand they say they will legislate to ensure that the budget is balanced and then they make promises like this - how much do you think free childcare however laudable it is and why give free childcare to families who are in the top say 10% of earners - they should pay for that themselves.
Then further issues with children when growing up and they do not form proper bonds with parents because the children are in childcare?
Agencies what you think they should be able to bring people from abroad?
Which leads to the same question - what is it about these policies that you like. Just to be fare here is my comments.
As a minimum, Labour will cut Tuition Fees to £6,000 which by 2015 will amount to at least a 33% cut in tuition fees, but it is important to note that Labour has not yet given up on the idea of a Graduate Tax
Like a lot of announcements the devil is in the detail Universities can only charge £9,000 if they open up ways of poorer students getting education. Otherwise they can only charge £6,000
Labour will halt Michael Gove’s Free School Expansion Programme. Not a single new Free School will be announced under a Labour government
One of the biggest problems with post war education has been interference from LEAs - as such I would prefer schools were free and able to teach people as they see fit, only constrained by the need to ensure that children get through exams and have the opportunity for a good career in their adult life.
Labour will abolish the Tory ban on Local Education Authorities opening State Schools once more
Are you sure that the 'ban' exists? Doing a Google search on 'Tories ban Local authorities from opening new schools' results in the same list in this thread. Even if it does are you sure this is not a way of reducing spending - which has been the theme of this parliament anyway.
Labour support the establishment of Parent-Led Academies where there is a shortage of school places
What is the substantive difference between Acadamies and Free schools which Labour have said they will not open?
Labour will require all teachers to pass an MOT style accreditation every 7-9 years passing them ‘Fit to Teach’
Not so keen on this - rather Teachers were subject to a continual checks, much like the current regime.
Labour will give 25 Hours of Free Childcare to parents with children aged 3 & 4
Labour will guarantee wraparound care from 8am-6am is available for every child in England
Sounds great, except on the one hand they say they will legislate to ensure that the budget is balanced and then they make promises like this - how much do you think free childcare however laudable it is and why give free childcare to families who are in the top say 10% of earners - they should pay for that themselves.
Then further issues with children when growing up and they do not form proper bonds with parents because the children are in childcare?
I did not say nor did I imply that I think agencies should be able to bring people from abroad, I said I don't think agencies should be banned from employing people who have come from abroad.
As for the rest of your post then following your reasoning, I'm not absolutely sure now what I think about them, I guess I will have to read up about them a bit more.
Now of course this will provoke a sneering response and perhaps a few personal insults thrown in as well,
Let's take the first one (I am rather busy today):
As a minimum, Labour will cut Tuition Fees to £6,000 which by 2015 will amount to at least a 33% cut in tuition fees, but it is important to note that Labour has not yet given up on the idea of a Graduate Tax
The maximum university fee for students in England would be cut by a third under Labour, Ed Miliband has said. If the party was in power now it would reduce the cap from £9,000 to £6,000 to ease the debt burden on students, the Labour leader told Andrew Marr.
However, Mr Miliband refused to guarantee that the tuition fee cap would be in Labour's manifesto for the next general election in 2015.
- you appear to be unclear as to how politics work. Labour say this kind of thing - "if we were in power now, we'd do xyz, however we'd need to assess the situation again at the time of the election. It's not a firm policy for the next election, I'd afraid you've been hoodwinked by Labour.
I assure you I have not been hoodwinked in the slightest, and I know that you are intelligent enough to not miss the point by accident, but you seem to think I am stupid enough not to notice a bit of 'deliberate' point missing and deflection, YOU are the OP of this thread are you not? allow me to remind you of the title of your thread,
Labour - big policy announcement on education
I was the one pointing out that this "big policy announcement" was nothing of the sort and then you have the cheek to say that I "appear to be unclear as to how politics work" I suggest it's you who is the one who seems unclear on the difference between a 'suggestion' and actual party 'policy'.
You then went on to say,.... well, when I say "you went on to say" I actually mean you went on to sneer,
Irony... this is all Labour appear to have on education. Still, I am sure Mr Hunt had a good time in Singapore.
I then provided a link to show that Labour have considerably 'more' to "say on education" I don't believe I said that they are cast iron Labour policies, the link itself calls them policies, but I think most adults understand that a 'policy' isnt a policy until its in an actual manifesto, the list should really be called "policy ideas"
Labour say this kind of thing - "if we were in power now, we'd do xyz, however we'd need to assess the situation again at the time of the election. It's not a firm policy for the next election, I'd afraid you've been hoodwinked by Labour
I think the entire nation was "hoodwinked" by the Tories and the yellows,..... actually, forget the past tense,
Do you remember for example, "we will make work pay"?.... translated from the Orwellian 'Toryspeak' = We intend to make it impossible to survive on benefits forcing people to take low paid jobs (if they can find one) that in most cases will not make a shred of difference to either their standard of living, their reliance on benefits, or the way they are treated by us and the way we encourage the public to view them.
Edited to add But we will be able to declare that we are reducing unemployment while still treating the low paid with the same contempt we have for the unemployed.
how about this one "we are all in it together"? now COME ON, that IS funny, and needs no further debate.
how about "genuine cases have nothing to fear"?
again translated from Toryspeak, "If you are declared 'fit for work'
if you are sanctioned by the job centre,
if you have your benefits stopped, if you are punished for having a "spare" room,
if one of your neighbours 'reports you to the department of social divison and your benefits are stopped,
if you are evicted from the home you have lived in for decades because you can no longer afford the rent due to being punished for 'spare room crime', even if for the vast majority of those decades you were in full time employment until you were made redundant or became too ill to work" Then it follows that you are not a "genuine case", and therefore have everything to fear.
or perhaps, "the NHS is safe in our hands"
translated from Toryspeak, we will whittle away at it around the edges selling off bits that the stupid public won't notice and those that DO notice and protest about it will be written off as 'trouble makers' and 'loony lefties' by us and our friends in the media, we will also introduce legislation that makes it a crime to be 'beastly' about what we are doing.
as well as our loyal stormtroopers, helping out by pouncing on anyone who dares speak their mind.
meanwhile, in a really amusing and cynical show of just how stupid we believe the public to be, we will put in charge of YOUR NHS the man who called it "a 60 year mistake" quite deliberately putting the fox in charge of the hen house, it's a beautiful thing when you can take the piss out of the public and they don't even notice.
and finally my personal favourite piece of Orwellian Tory double speak, I save the best till the last, "We support those who work hard and try to do the right thing"
OH YEAH,
they "support" them by freezing their in work benefits to way below inflation rises for two years, (a pay cut in real terms)
they "support" them by suggesting that people who tried to "do the right thing" but could only get a low paid part time or zero hours contract job, might yet be forced to either look for another job (there aren't enough jobs for everyone as it is, but they think some should be forced to have two) OR they may be required to to work for free (for our friends and funders) stacking shelves as a way of showing our "support" in order to 'earn' their reward for "doing the right thing"
and lets remember also that any of these low paid "hard workers" who also happen to have a "spare" bedroom, can rest assured that they will feel our "support" by way of us taking a considerable chunk of their already low income away from them"
I know I know another "rant" and me daring to express opinions that the beloved leader wouldn't approve of,
I often wish I could sum up my feelings in the way I would prefer, without the need for lengthy explanations or "rants" ya know, like your simple one liners this is all Labour appear to have on education
But sadly, if I wrote "I think the Tories are." *****
I would no longer be able to 'entertain' you with my "rants" or by expressing a different opinion/s than the one/s from the ministry of truth.
I did not say nor did I imply that I think agencies should be able to bring people from abroad, I said I don't think agencies should be banned from employing people who have come from abroad.
This is in the nature of debate - to be able to discusss the merits or otherwise of policy. In this instance I will explain why I think the ban should remain, and why I campaigned for it to remain, and remember while my direct experience is with well paid people - the situation is even worse for those lower down the pay scale.
There are two things to remember here.
1. The UK is one of the developed economies - as such we earn a lot more than many other countries, and especially countries such as Vietnam and India (although the latter are catching up with us).
2. Agencies make there money by the difference between what they pay the worker and what the client is willing to pay. Although they will say it is a percentage mark-up. We used to advise people when a contractor to never quote a minimum - because that is what you would get.
So if you allow agencies to bring in people from abroad they will do that and undercut local workers, often picking the worker from abroad over and above locals. Even if they did not the rates for work will go down as the supply of workers increases.
And that is why the ban should remain - you can see this more broadly in the figures released recently as wages are still low and many people have seen there incomes drop - and part of this is the (still) high immigration figures which have seen wages suppressed and this has been the case for most of this century,
And don't believe this has anything to do with a shortage of skills - when we had to demonstrate to the (labour) government back in 2003 that there was no shortage we placed a number of adverts for those skills that were in shortage and we had over 100 applicants. There is no skills shortage - just a combination of recruitment shortage and people not willing to work for less.
I was the one pointing out that this "big policy announcement" was nothing of the sort and then you have the cheek to say that I "appear to be unclear as to how politics work" I suggest it's you who is the one who seems unclear on the difference between a 'suggestion' and actual party 'policy'.
You then went on to say,.... well, when I say "you went on to say" I actually mean you went on to sneer,
You then linked to your favourite "100 Labour Party Policies" (as you do most days) to pretend that Labour had something substantive to say on education. I picked up on the very first one and showed you that there was no commitment to put it in the election manifesto. Not much of a policy is it? Are the other 99 just as worthless?
I was talking about this great new policy with my Dad who's a staunch Labour supporter and he's called it a pathetic idea. I think calling it Giberish is giving it too much credit. It's more the ravings of a loon not a politician. At least Gove's banned book list had more substance to it.
If this is the best they can do then Lord help the Labour Party.
You look at the top of the party and it doesn't look good does it. None of them look good and can't debate well either...
I'm sorry it took me 2 days to respond. On reflection I think I was being too tactful when I referred to the idea as 'inconsequential gibberish' on Sunday. You have a good point when you say the idea is more 'ravings of a loon.'
Knowing what we do now about how in the past the party would go all out to generate press attention before a policy announcement was made, I think they did the same on this occasion. I can just picture their current Damien McBride/Alastair Campbell figure 'bigging' this up. As you also put, 'Lord help the party!' I personally think it's an embarrassment.
Thank you for sharing your Dad's feelings on this too.
My personal opinion hasn't changed since before the 2010 election. I think there needs to be a breakaway from the Labour party now or at the least the equivalent of an enema. The figures at the top are a joke and need expelling.
I must say the thing about tuition fees makes me laugh. Ultimately let's not forget that it was the Labour party which introduced them in the first place. Didn't one former Labour education secretary (think it was Ted Short) say he was 'ashamed' by the fact his party were introducing them at the time?
Top-up fees were then introduced by the same government in 2004, taking the fees up to £3,000. We won't dwell too much about the pre-2001 election pledges to specifically not introduce these. There were talks about increasing fees further again before the 2010 election. The law of averages suggests had Labour won in 2010, they'd have also put the fees up to the current levels.
Comments
Possibly the OP was confused by the fact that they are a list of a think tank's suggestions "which they hope will be considered for inclusion in the 2015 Labour Party manifesto" And didn't realise that they had actually become Labour policy.
Or possibly because they aren't as yet
Good Policies? Well that is a matter of opinion
1.Labour will introduce a Mansion Tax on properties worth more than £2 million
The issues with a mansion tax have been discussed already.
7.Labour will introduce an Income Tax cut for 25 million workers by halving the lowest rate of Income Tax to just 10%
What like the one they abolished. Further the more bands you have the then end up being a disincentive as the effects of marginal tax rates kick in.
8.Labour would bring back the 50p rate for High Earners
Despite it showing that in this country at least amounts greater than 46p actually reduce the tax take forcing poorer tax payers to take a much greater share of the burden
12.New Fiscal Rules will require the budget to be balanced, and for National Debt, not just the deficit, to be reduced through the elimination of the structural deficit
Is this the structural deficit many Labour supporters claim does not exist and why does it need legislation? Why not go ahead and do it (or not create one in the first place)
17.Labour will close tax loopholes in the Construction Industry that currently cost taxpayers £500million a year
Specifics? What tax loopholes?
30.Labour will introduce a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee, giving long term unemployed persons a 6 month paid job with view to extending it
Is this even possible - without it basically being jobs in the public sector which will only make it even harder to reduce the deficit, as unless these jobs are actually required productivity will drop and so the cost of providing those services.
46.Labour will break up the big 6 Energy Companies and separate the power stations from the retailers
Was it not under Labour that they became the Big Six after consolidation in the market.
47.Labour will axe Ofgem & replace it with a tougher regulatory body with more powers to prevent Energy Price Rises
What stopped them in the 13 years they were in power?
68.Labour would set up a Financial Crime Unit, with increased staffing, in the Serious Fraud Office to enable the SFO to pursue bankers who break the law
Again what stopped them when they were in power - there was plenty of misdemeanours under Labours watch and despite setting up the Regulatory system - it failed miserably.
86.Labour will sack ATOS from carrying out Work Capability Tests
It was labour who engaged them in the first place
88.Labour will replace the Tory Benefit Cap with a Regional Benefit Cap that takes account of the excessive cost of rental housing in London
Granted this one seems sensible (even a broken watch is right twice a day)
91.Labour’s new Immigration Bill would compel Multi-Nationals to create 1 Apprenticeship place each time a skilled worker was hired from outside the EU
Again what stopped them when in power - this was said to Labour as long ago as 2001 when they decided importing workers was such a good wheeze - while speaking to Big Business and not one single worker representative organisation. Indeed as people's incomes were dropping and work vanishing they had the unmitigated gall to ask those organisations to go and prove there was no shortage. Ever got the feeling that some people are very angry with Labour.
92.Labour’s new Immigration Bill would ban Recruitment Consultancy firms from only hiring abroad & ban firms from paying temporary workers less than permanent staff
Agencies are not allowed to recruit from abroad indeed they were calling for this at the same time as Labour ramped up the Intra-Company Transfer scheme, and they actively considered it as well.
97.Labour will introduce a Women’s Justice Board that will seek to find ways of using restorative justice to lower reoffending and the rates of women jailed
Why not for both sexes and is this even legal under EU sex equality legislation?
Those things I missed out are because I don't know enough to comment. But this is a list of things Milliband thinks will be popular and takes no account either of practicality or their own record in office - why should we even believe it.
And he's off!
Let's take the first one (I am rather busy today):
As a minimum, Labour will cut Tuition Fees to £6,000 which by 2015 will amount to at least a 33% cut in tuition fees, but it is important to note that Labour has not yet given up on the idea of a Graduate Tax
From your link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15050334
The maximum university fee for students in England would be cut by a third under Labour, Ed Miliband has said. If the party was in power now it would reduce the cap from £9,000 to £6,000 to ease the debt burden on students, the Labour leader told Andrew Marr.
However, Mr Miliband refused to guarantee that the tuition fee cap would be in Labour's manifesto for the next general election in 2015.
- you appear to be unclear as to how politics work. Labour say this kind of thing - "if we were in power now, we'd do xyz, however we'd need to assess the situation again at the time of the election. It's not a firm policy for the next election, I'd afraid you've been hoodwinked by Labour.
I hadn't clicked on the link so I was referring specifically to the education policies that Old Hippy Guy had quoted in his post. As you say it is a matter of opinion and my opinion is that those policies(were they ever implemented )would be very good.
But why? Why do you think they are a good idea. That is what debate is about. As I said for many of those policies listed - Labour did exactly the opposite when in power - so why - even where I think it is a good idea - would I believe them.
Take the proposal to ban agencies from employing people from abroad. I worked on the campaign to stop that being introduced under Labour the last time. It took considerable research to back up our claim that this would be wrong - even while the agency representative groups (such as REC and ATsCO) campaigned to be given the right. As it is they were not allowed - so here we have a proposal that is essentially meaningless.
I didn't say I think all 100 policies are a good idea just the educational ones, and on reflection maybe not even all of them. As for the proposal to ban agencies from employing people from abroad, I disagree with it, most of the other Labour policy proposals you have listed I reserve judgment on because I don't know any of the details, as far as I am concerned as with the education proposals some sound okay and some don't.
Agencies what you think they should be able to bring people from abroad?
Which leads to the same question - what is it about these policies that you like. Just to be fare here is my comments.
As a minimum, Labour will cut Tuition Fees to £6,000 which by 2015 will amount to at least a 33% cut in tuition fees, but it is important to note that Labour has not yet given up on the idea of a Graduate Tax
Like a lot of announcements the devil is in the detail Universities can only charge £9,000 if they open up ways of poorer students getting education. Otherwise they can only charge £6,000
Labour will halt Michael Gove’s Free School Expansion Programme. Not a single new Free School will be announced under a Labour government
One of the biggest problems with post war education has been interference from LEAs - as such I would prefer schools were free and able to teach people as they see fit, only constrained by the need to ensure that children get through exams and have the opportunity for a good career in their adult life.
Labour will abolish the Tory ban on Local Education Authorities opening State Schools once more
Are you sure that the 'ban' exists? Doing a Google search on 'Tories ban Local authorities from opening new schools' results in the same list in this thread. Even if it does are you sure this is not a way of reducing spending - which has been the theme of this parliament anyway.
Labour support the establishment of Parent-Led Academies where there is a shortage of school places
What is the substantive difference between Acadamies and Free schools which Labour have said they will not open?
Labour will require all teachers to pass an MOT style accreditation every 7-9 years passing them ‘Fit to Teach’
Not so keen on this - rather Teachers were subject to a continual checks, much like the current regime.
Labour will give 25 Hours of Free Childcare to parents with children aged 3 & 4
Labour will guarantee wraparound care from 8am-6am is available for every child in England
Sounds great, except on the one hand they say they will legislate to ensure that the budget is balanced and then they make promises like this - how much do you think free childcare however laudable it is and why give free childcare to families who are in the top say 10% of earners - they should pay for that themselves.
Then further issues with children when growing up and they do not form proper bonds with parents because the children are in childcare?
I did not say nor did I imply that I think agencies should be able to bring people from abroad, I said I don't think agencies should be banned from employing people who have come from abroad.
As for the rest of your post then following your reasoning, I'm not absolutely sure now what I think about them, I guess I will have to read up about them a bit more.
As predicted,
I assure you I have not been hoodwinked in the slightest, and I know that you are intelligent enough to not miss the point by accident, but you seem to think I am stupid enough not to notice a bit of 'deliberate' point missing and deflection,
YOU are the OP of this thread are you not? allow me to remind you of the title of your thread,
I was the one pointing out that this "big policy announcement" was nothing of the sort and then you have the cheek to say that I "appear to be unclear as to how politics work" I suggest it's you who is the one who seems unclear on the difference between a 'suggestion' and actual party 'policy'.
You then went on to say,.... well, when I say "you went on to say" I actually mean you went on to sneer, I then provided a link to show that Labour have considerably 'more' to "say on education" I don't believe I said that they are cast iron Labour policies, the link itself calls them policies, but I think most adults understand that a 'policy' isnt a policy until its in an actual manifesto, the list should really be called "policy ideas" I think the entire nation was "hoodwinked" by the Tories and the yellows,..... actually, forget the past tense,
Do you remember for example, "we will make work pay"?.... translated from the Orwellian 'Toryspeak' = We intend to make it impossible to survive on benefits forcing people to take low paid jobs (if they can find one) that in most cases will not make a shred of difference to either their standard of living, their reliance on benefits, or the way they are treated by us and the way we encourage the public to view them.
Edited to add But we will be able to declare that we are reducing unemployment while still treating the low paid with the same contempt we have for the unemployed.
how about this one "we are all in it together"? now COME ON, that IS funny, and needs no further debate.
how about "genuine cases have nothing to fear"?
again translated from Toryspeak, "If you are declared 'fit for work'
if you are sanctioned by the job centre,
if you have your benefits stopped, if you are punished for having a "spare" room,
if one of your neighbours 'reports you to the department of social divison and your benefits are stopped,
if you are evicted from the home you have lived in for decades because you can no longer afford the rent due to being punished for 'spare room crime', even if for the vast majority of those decades you were in full time employment until you were made redundant or became too ill to work"
Then it follows that you are not a "genuine case", and therefore have everything to fear.
or perhaps, "the NHS is safe in our hands"
translated from Toryspeak, we will whittle away at it around the edges selling off bits that the stupid public won't notice and those that DO notice and protest about it will be written off as 'trouble makers' and 'loony lefties' by us and our friends in the media, we will also introduce legislation that makes it a crime to be 'beastly' about what we are doing.
as well as our loyal stormtroopers, helping out by pouncing on anyone who dares speak their mind.
meanwhile, in a really amusing and cynical show of just how stupid we believe the public to be, we will put in charge of YOUR NHS the man who called it "a 60 year mistake" quite deliberately putting the fox in charge of the hen house, it's a beautiful thing when you can take the piss out of the public and they don't even notice.
and finally my personal favourite piece of Orwellian Tory double speak, I save the best till the last,
"We support those who work hard and try to do the right thing"
OH YEAH,
they "support" them by freezing their in work benefits to way below inflation rises for two years, (a pay cut in real terms)
they "support" them by suggesting that people who tried to "do the right thing" but could only get a low paid part time or zero hours contract job, might yet be forced to either look for another job (there aren't enough jobs for everyone as it is, but they think some should be forced to have two) OR they may be required to to work for free (for our friends and funders) stacking shelves as a way of showing our "support" in order to 'earn' their reward for "doing the right thing"
and lets remember also that any of these low paid "hard workers" who also happen to have a "spare" bedroom, can rest assured that they will feel our "support" by way of us taking a considerable chunk of their already low income away from them"
I know I know another "rant" and me daring to express opinions that the beloved leader wouldn't approve of,
I often wish I could sum up my feelings in the way I would prefer, without the need for lengthy explanations or "rants" ya know, like your simple one liners this is all Labour appear to have on education
But sadly, if I wrote "I think the Tories are." *****
I would no longer be able to 'entertain' you with my "rants" or by expressing a different opinion/s than the one/s from the ministry of truth.
This is in the nature of debate - to be able to discusss the merits or otherwise of policy. In this instance I will explain why I think the ban should remain, and why I campaigned for it to remain, and remember while my direct experience is with well paid people - the situation is even worse for those lower down the pay scale.
There are two things to remember here.
1. The UK is one of the developed economies - as such we earn a lot more than many other countries, and especially countries such as Vietnam and India (although the latter are catching up with us).
2. Agencies make there money by the difference between what they pay the worker and what the client is willing to pay. Although they will say it is a percentage mark-up. We used to advise people when a contractor to never quote a minimum - because that is what you would get.
So if you allow agencies to bring in people from abroad they will do that and undercut local workers, often picking the worker from abroad over and above locals. Even if they did not the rates for work will go down as the supply of workers increases.
And that is why the ban should remain - you can see this more broadly in the figures released recently as wages are still low and many people have seen there incomes drop - and part of this is the (still) high immigration figures which have seen wages suppressed and this has been the case for most of this century,
And don't believe this has anything to do with a shortage of skills - when we had to demonstrate to the (labour) government back in 2003 that there was no shortage we placed a number of adverts for those skills that were in shortage and we had over 100 applicants. There is no skills shortage - just a combination of recruitment shortage and people not willing to work for less.
Rich coming from you who started off your earlier post with "allow me to "educate" you".
You then linked to your favourite "100 Labour Party Policies" (as you do most days) to pretend that Labour had something substantive to say on education. I picked up on the very first one and showed you that there was no commitment to put it in the election manifesto. Not much of a policy is it? Are the other 99 just as worthless?
What was the rest of your post about?
I'm sorry it took me 2 days to respond. On reflection I think I was being too tactful when I referred to the idea as 'inconsequential gibberish' on Sunday. You have a good point when you say the idea is more 'ravings of a loon.'
Knowing what we do now about how in the past the party would go all out to generate press attention before a policy announcement was made, I think they did the same on this occasion. I can just picture their current Damien McBride/Alastair Campbell figure 'bigging' this up. As you also put, 'Lord help the party!' I personally think it's an embarrassment.
Thank you for sharing your Dad's feelings on this too.
My personal opinion hasn't changed since before the 2010 election. I think there needs to be a breakaway from the Labour party now or at the least the equivalent of an enema. The figures at the top are a joke and need expelling.
I must say the thing about tuition fees makes me laugh. Ultimately let's not forget that it was the Labour party which introduced them in the first place. Didn't one former Labour education secretary (think it was Ted Short) say he was 'ashamed' by the fact his party were introducing them at the time?
Top-up fees were then introduced by the same government in 2004, taking the fees up to £3,000. We won't dwell too much about the pre-2001 election pledges to specifically not introduce these. There were talks about increasing fees further again before the 2010 election. The law of averages suggests had Labour won in 2010, they'd have also put the fees up to the current levels.