2007-02-22 20:58:31 · 27 answers · asked by Bob M 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
no in two letters
2007-02-22 21:00:51 · answer #1 · answered by david g 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sections of the old Labour Party genuinely did try to represent the interests of the poor and low paid. New Labour, however, drew much of its support from the professional middle classes - the so-called centre. People with educational backgrounds and lifestyles similar to Blair, in fact. Many of the policies New Labour have pursued have definitely not been in the interests of the poor, being more concerned with creating a "business friendly environment" for the multinational corporations. Overall I would suggest that the New Labour Party does not now represent the wishes of the poor.
2007-02-23 00:38:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought the idea of the Labour party was to allow everyone an equal chance in life regardless of wealth, so not sure that they ever represented the wishes of the poor.
2007-02-22 21:03:44 · answer #3 · answered by Mad Professor 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope! That high ideal I would guess, have lasted for about two or three years after the party was inaugurated. After that it was largely forgotten. But 'the poor' is such an all-enveloping term, don't you think? I know lots of poor people, who are poor because they wont do anything to get 'un-poor', to coin a word!
Mind you, there are not too many of them now, are there! What with all the free handouts they get from the State.
'Poor' you and me, the working suckers!
Yes, yes I know! I'm a cynic!
2007-02-22 23:22:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need to define who are the poor. It seems to me that the real poor are the majority of pensioners, and they just get poorer and poorer. The labour party does not appear to be either able or willing to represent them.
2007-02-23 04:19:16 · answer #5 · answered by needtoknow 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No Political power has never represented the poor. This is because the poor have no wealth and no power, also the middle and lower classes are too busy fighting amongst themselves and that s that
2007-02-23 00:51:46 · answer #6 · answered by Killthrust 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course they do. Pensioners get a 3% increase (M.P.s want to double their own income) When you are 80 you get an extra 25p on your pension. What kind of mind thinks that up and what salary are they on. Also at 80 you get a free passport. If you have not been where you want to go by then it is a bit late even if you can get insurance. If you drive a car then you have to buy your own petrol but they get up to 40p per mile allowance. If you are working you get just over 4 weeks holiday. They get months. They can claim up to £250 expenses without a receipt. You try to get reimbursed for anything without proof and see how you get on. The list is endless but the short answer to your question is NO.
2007-02-22 22:03:57 · answer #7 · answered by Cooper1 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As the party of government, it is supposed to represent the wishes of the whole people, not just one interest group
2007-02-22 23:57:53 · answer #8 · answered by mick t 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The labour party has always been full of middle class marxists hand jobs who have always looked on the working class with envy hatred and distrust and have done everything they could to keep the workers in their place
2007-02-22 21:26:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think New Labour is a Labour Party, it is a vehicle for Blairs ambition.
2007-02-25 11:28:20 · answer #10 · answered by DS 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If, as it seems clear, the poor are getting poorer what do you think? And how many more 'poor people' are there since this lot came to power? I'd have thought many hundreds of thousands of pensioners have suddently found themselves in this banding. What a legacy.
2007-02-23 02:37:48 · answer #11 · answered by michael w 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋