Will June 8 Mean The End Of Labour?

[Kromovaracun]

I recall a few discussions on here about whether losing the next election would mean the end of the Labour party.

Apparently, most of the members might actually want that to happen...

http://www.politico.eu/article/1-in-4-labour-supporters-want-party-to-split-if-it-loses-election/

//
Fewer than 40 percent of respondents said the opposition party should remain in its current form and many — emboldened by Emmanuel Macron’s victory in France — see an opportunity to rebrand Labour, the Telegraph said.//

//Sixty percent said they would like to see Labour merge with the Liberal Democrats if both are defeated by the Conservatives, //

Pitifully small sample size of 500 though. Do you think this survey is representative among Labour supporters?

[mikey4444]

The recent rise in the Polls for Labour is all to do with the attack on pensioners by the Tories....alas, its too late to do anything to what will be the inevitable result in June.

[Old_Geezer]

Parties have "died" before but there needs to be a credible alternative party to take over as opposition/government. Clearly there is none at present, so clearly this is a ridiculous suggestion. In the not so distant past the Tory party was more likely to drop out than the present Labour party.

[ichkeria]

By the time Michael 'by the time the cock crows eleven times I will have denied Paxman 12 times' Howard was shuffled in they'd started to get their act together. A safe pair of hands on the tiller while they sorted themselves out. And of course these things do tend to go in cycles and my money would, just, be on Labour surviving. But it may be a long way back and depends on the reaction to likely the defeat

[jim360]

Yeah, polls are weird. It's the trends you should be interested in of course rather than the specific numbers. What I find slightly discouraging about the Labour bounce is that it doesn't really seem to reflect any change in support for the Tories, still riding hid in the mid- to high 40s. Returning UKIP voters? And there's no sign of the Lib Dems doing anything much either.

So we're back to two-party politics (sigh...)

[Chris38]

The headbangers now running the Labour Party certainly need to be dumped. However. the out-of -touch stupid incompetents responsible for the Conservative manifesto look to have tried to compose a suicide note. Increasingly, Teresa May is looking less and less like a Conservative as time goes by. The foul stench of the appalling Heath government of the 1970s is becoming more obvious all the time.

[Bigbad]

I agree with Chris38.
We have Labour wanting to penalise the people who have done well for themselves by taxing them further to pay for the lazy, feckless, and work-shy, whilst the Conservatives want homeowners to (all intent and purpose) lose their homes if they need care, whilst committing to millions in overseas aid.

I’m starting think that the choice the British people have is as bad as the one the Americans had!

Will June 8 mean the end of Labour? Probably not, there are still too many dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporters who will back them no matter what.

[Old_Geezer]

Worth noting that the poll wasn't by members, but by those who had voted for Labour previously. Those who don't need to be realistic especially in a poll.

Those in politics would inevitably take a saner view and not officially split the party and watch both parts fail to gain sufficient support.

As is always the case, extremer left and right wing views will inevitably be put aside as the party in question agrees a way forward. Just takes time, in this case to regain it's former left of centre position that it used to have before it lurched right to attract some of the traditionally Tory voters.

[Old_Geezer]

Actually it's that both sides want to penalise hard working past contributors in order to pay for unemployed and ensure they stay unemployed. Seen the trend of State pension age qualification recently ?

[naomi24]

Bigbad, //the Conservatives want homeowners to (all intent and purpose) lose their homes if they need care//

I don't think that's right. It's what happens now, but as I understand it homes will not be required to be sold to pay for care until after the owner dies. Furthermore, £100,000 from the proceeds will be safeguarded as a legacy for the deceased's next of kin, which to me at least, seems a lot fairer. At the moment, anyone with more than £23,000 to their name has to pay. I think I've got that right.

[Khandro]

Bigbad; //..............whilst the Conservatives want homeowners to (all intent and purpose) lose their homes if they need care, whilst committing to millions in overseas aid.//

Two separate issues there, all past governments have upheld the practice of overseas aid, and I think it daft that it is always pegged to a percentage of GDP and that sum given away willy-nilly. It should instead be given to specific projects and dependent solely on prioritised need.

Regarding people who may lose their homes because they need care at the end of their days, why should their valuable property be ring-fenced while their care is paid for by people who are perhaps not so fortunate?

[naomi24]

Khandro's post has reminded me that I should have added if you think Labour would stop spending on overseas aid, you should think again.

[Bigbad]

At the moment, a property value is only taken in to consideration if you end up in a home.
Under the new proposals, it will be taken in to consideration if you need a carer visiting you in your own home.
So if Social Services decide that you need someone in 3 times a day just to dish out your tablets, (the average cost of a home visiting carer in my part of the country is around £15 per hour), then your home will be factored in to their calculations as to how much you will pay.
So, if you live for years and stay in your own home, when you die, Social Services will be paid any money from your estate that they are owed, with a maximum of 100K that they will not be able to touch.
I assume that it’s the remaining 100K that will have to be used to pay for solicitors fees, thus eroding that 100K even further.

I don’t know about everyone else, but I would rather my children got to inherit the full value of my house.

And how about the people that don’t own a property? Are they being penalised in any way?

And I am fully aware that Labour would not stop spending on overseas aid.
For the record I am not, never have been, and never will be a Labour supporter.

The biggest problem with this country is that there are too many people in it, and too many of them sticking their hands out for their ‘entitlements.’ Successive governments have been too afraid to reverse the ‘welcome one and welcome all’ policies for fear of being called racist, and they have also been afraid to force the feckless into work by making them take the low paid jobs that foreign workers do, and stopping their dole money if they refuse.
Oh yeah, and we also seem to pay people for having children too!

[Bigbad]

^^

... and I should have said after the last paragraph - that's why there is not enough money to go round

[naomi24]

Bigbad, we would all rather our children inherited the full value of our homes, but unfortunately everything has to be paid for in one way or another – and I agree with you – there are too many people sticking their hands out for their ‘entitlements’.

[Khandro]

Things are not always fair; some people scrimp and save and end up owning a nice house which perhaps has to pay for their care, and there are the feckless who end up with nothing everyone else paying for them.

Life is uncertain as the tides of Euripus

[Kromovaracun]

Do either of you have any numbers for how many wrongful hand-sticker-outers there are?

[Bigbad]

Yes, Naomi, and up until this latest proposal, unless you were unfortunate enough to end up in a home, there was a good chance that our children would inherit what we wanted them to.
Of course everything has to be paid for, but in this over populated, over burdened country, it would appear that if you do well for yourself and live a decent life, you are expected to prop up those that haven’t.
Up until now, your property wasn’t factored in if you needed care at home, but because there is so little money to go round, it will be.
I would still like to know if the non homeowners are also being penalised.

Young people are struggling to get on the property ladder, but with this latest proposal, I’m not sure it will be worth the struggle.

None of us know what the future holds, so some will reach the end of their lives with the full value of their home in tact, whereas others will lose a large chunk of it because they got old and had the audacity not to die.

It seems to me that that the attitude is “eat healthily, don’t smoke, drink in moderation and take exercise, and you won’t be a burden on the state.”
Which then becomes “oh, you’ve done all that, and now you are going through the ageing process and need some help - what a burden you are”!

[ludwig]

It won't be the end of the political party called Labour, but it will have to decide if it actually cares about winning a general election again, and if so how it's going to achieve that. Corbyn has to go for any progress to be made, but it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't.

[fender62]

so it would seem, best not to own a house..sell it and rent if your elderly, have last blast with your cash, if your able