Why do poor people keep voting Labour..

[redrobbo]

.....when it's patently obvious they don't want poor people to become richer as it would become more likely that these people would then vote for a different party thereby putting the survival of the Labour Party at risk.

Basically, the Labour Party need to keep people poor or on benefits (whilst at the same time giving the impression that they are/will become better off under Labour) so that it has a ready supply of gullible voters at election time.

 

You claim that "poor people" = "gullible voters". Do you have any other condescending observations you'd care to share with us?

 

I wonder how Labour managed to win the general elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005 if, as you claim, the party can only survive on the votes of poor people?

[pininsho]

I was just pointing out a similarity.

 

For what reason?

 

 

I obviously got the title from the, 'Why do poor people vote Tory?' thread.

I'm sure somebody will come along soon and start a thread titled, 'Why do rich people vote Labour?'

[Vague_Boy]

How exactly does the funding that has increased the number of people in higher education and helped people in to work prove anything

 

More numbers in higher education are just that, bums on seats. That's why employers are instituting their own entrance tests, because the current education system is all about shifting units and meeting targets, not educating people.

 

One in three employers is having to send staff for remedial training to teach them basic English and maths skills they did not learn at school, the CBI said today (Monday) in a new report which calls for urgent action to tackle these shortcomings.

 

Around a fifth of employers often find non-graduate recruits of all ages have literacy or numeracy problems, yet a third expect the levels of skills required for work will increase over the next five years.

 

LINK

 

As for helping people into work, I take it you missed the stories on the number of economically inactive people being at a record high and the number of people forced into part time work against their will also being at a record high. Not to mention official unemployment being at a 15 year high (I won't mention all those who have been removed from the figures and shunted off onto incapacity benefits).

 

Any idiot can throw money at a situation, it takes skill to get value for that money.

 

Primary teachers fail basic maths test

 

One in five UK adults 'illiterate'

 

Is this really the best we can expect from all that extra spending?

[Longcol]

.....when it's patently obvious they don't want poor people to become richer as it would become more likely that these people would then vote for a different party thereby putting the survival of the Labour Party at risk.

Basically, the Labour Party need to keep people poor or on benefits (whilst at the same time giving the impression that they are/will become better off under Labour) so that it has a ready supply of gullible voters at election time.

 

The basic flaw with that arguement is that there will always be people poorer than others. Are you advocating more equality?

 

And what on earth makes you think most Labour voters are on benefits?

[pininsho]

You claim that "poor people" = "gullible voters". Do you have any other condescending observations you'd care to share with us?

 

Ooooh loads.....but that's for another thread so please don't tempt me.

 

I wonder how Labour managed to win the general elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005 if, as you claim, the party can only survive on the votes of poor people?

 

Because they had a Tory as their leader for all of that time who cosyed up to big business in a way that Thatcher could only have dreamed of.

Remember him.....Tory...er sorry...Tony Blair?

[pininsho]

The basic flaw with that arguement is that there will always be people poorer than others. Are you advocating more equality?

 

Depends what you mean by equality.

 

And what on earth makes you think most Labour voters are on benefits?

 

I never said and I don't believe that most Labour voters are on benefits. However I do believe that most people on benefits will be Labour supporters.

[Wildcat]

You're still making assertions that I clearly don't accept without providing any evidence to back them up.....but let's say I accept your assertion (which I don't BTW) that some 'extra funding that Labour provided helped people into work', then do we know how well paid these jobs are? How do we know that these jobs may not have paid a higher wage had they not have to pay extra taxes to fund the job search clubs that found these people the jobs in the first place?

 

That Labour's policies have not got anyone back in to work is too absurd to even know where to begin with. Have you never heard of New Deal? Local Employer Partnerships etc.

 

Those particular programmes are for getting long term unemployed in to work, it doesn't matter that they are low paid jobs, it is irrelevant to your assertion.

 

Broadened access to training and higher education has also enabled people to work at all levels in society.

 

There is a problem of social mobility because of the competition for high paid jobs that unfortunately working class people educated to the same standards experience. But that is not caused by a lack of funding. In fact it is caused by the opposite, it is caused by student debts and the need for students from lower income families to work whilst they are studying, that limits their ability to take on work that would make them more employable in higher earning jobs.

 

This paper for example discusses the problem:

 

This means that students no longer see first degrees – regardless of the subject studied and class obtained - as sufficient to give them the “edge” over their competitors when applying for graduate jobs. They thus feel the need to supplement their “hard” credentials with an impressive CV of voluntary work, work experience, extra curricular university engagement, charity work, travelling etc.(Tomlinson, 2008). The problem is that not all students can afford to enhance their CV in this way, especially those coming from lesser well -off and working class backgrounds. Indeed these students are more likely to work during term time, to try to pay off their debts immediately after graduation or - even worse – to drop out of university. They are thus, ironically so, disadvantaged by the expansion of Higher Education. The divide runs across gender and ethnic cleavages too: Data show that financially challenged graduates are the most likely to be “over educated” directly after graduation; that is, they are more likely to be employed in below graduate-level jobs.

 

http://www.hecsu.ac.uk/hecsu.rd/research_reports_he_expansion_and_the_graduate_labour_market.htm

 

The problem then is not a matter of overfunding, it is one of the underfunding of student loans

[lynsey82]

I'm not going to pretend that I completely understand what you're all talking about as this is the first year I've actually been interested in the elections but I do want to tell you all of an observation that I've made over the last couple of weeks. Whenever I speak to people and this subject arises, when I ask labour voters why they voted labour the majority have answered "because my mum and dad have always voted labour".

 

Is it possible that labour got so many votes in these elections through mis-guided loyalty to parents? Because it seems to me that it was a big part of it.

 

Like I said, I'm brand new to this and don't want a debate I just wanted to mention the reasons that were given to me.

[Mister M]

If Labour did want to keep people poor why they campaign on the "homes fit for heroes" tag after WW2? Why did they create a National Health Service at a time when the country was even more broke than it is now? Why did they set up amongst other things the Open University, champion the rights of many women who are often poorer than men (e.g. through Equal Pay legislation)? Why did they introduce the National Minimum Wage? Why all the attempts to increase participation of working class people in Higher Education.

 

The only thing the Tories have done for the poor is to increase their number.

[Wildcat]

More numbers in higher education are just that, bums on seats. That's why employers are instituting their own entrance tests, because the current education system is all about shifting units and meeting targets, not educating people.

 

Addressed in the post above. The problem is the lack of student grants limiting opportunities for poorer students.

 

 

LINK

 

As for helping people into work, I take it you missed the stories on the number of economically inactive people being at a record high and the number of people forced into part time work against their will also being at a record high. Not to mention official unemployment being at a 15 year high (I won't mention all those who have been removed from the figures and shunted off onto incapacity benefits).

 

Any idiot can throw money at a situation, it takes skill to get value for that money.

 

Primary teachers fail basic maths test

 

One in five UK adults 'illiterate'

 

Is this really the best we can expect from all that extra spending?

 

As for your statistics they don't actually refute the point that Labour has helped people in to work. I note you haven't cited the facts that were responded to you earlier that Germany has a higher number of economically inactive people than we do. Nor do you mention the fact that the new Govt.s plans involve increasing the number of unemployed massively by targeting those on sickness benefits, people that deserve help in to work, but help that costs businesses money in terms of reasonable adjustments... Not by my thinking a clever approach to take during a recession because the support available won't be there because of cuts to employment programmes so those forced of incapacity benefits will at best resent the interventions, those in business will resent the legal obligations to be spending money on reasonable adjustments and sustaining higher levels of sickness absences in their organisations.... In fact the only people that would welcome such an intervention are likely to be the mean-minded typical tory voter that thinks anyone on benefits is automatically a freeloader and employment lawyers who will see their business dealing with disabilty discrimination claims going through the roof.

 

In fact a wise move for anyone considering studying for a profession at the moment could do a lot worse than employment law