Do you think labour did a good job??
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Mockery
£159billion borrowed in the 2009/10 financial year.
Splendid job indeed
Splendid job indeed
Hardly like they or any Govt would cut public spending by a £120bn (aka a fifth of spending) in the space of two years as tax revenues collpase.
Perhaps they should have run a £100bn surplus to protect against such scenarios...
Original post by Bill_Gates
Labour did an excellent job. I cannot wait to see them back, in order to free up the welfare state again.
Re-invest in the NHS
Socialism for all my friends
VOTE LABOUR!!
Re-invest in the NHS
Socialism for all my friends
VOTE LABOUR!!
I have to say that your a political puzzle. There are times you come across as very pro-business/aspiration but then you seem to support high taxes and glue yourself to Labour.
Original post by Old_Simon
Invaded Iraq on false pretences then lied about it
Occupied Afghanistan
Accepted One Million pound bribe from Bernie Ecclestone
Abandoned responsiblity for governance of financial sector
Engaged in creative accounting like PFI to hide expenditure
Ordered two huge Aircraft Carriers from Gordon Browns constituency - one of which is scheduled for mothballing already - and for neither of which are suitable aircraft in sight
Brought huge number of employed people into welfare, government control and socialism with Tax Credits
Presided over moral meltdown and continuing rise of single parenthood, crime, gambling and drinking.
Misused the honours system
Scrapped HMS Britannia
Took expenses abuse to new levels
Enacted Human Rights Act
Introduced "Court of Protection"
Handed power to unelected idiot incapable of winning election
Dissipated the public purse
Slashed the armed forces
Gave GPs ludicrous contract
Engaged in "open door" immigration policy for political purposes
Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ?
Occupied Afghanistan
Accepted One Million pound bribe from Bernie Ecclestone
Abandoned responsiblity for governance of financial sector
Engaged in creative accounting like PFI to hide expenditure
Ordered two huge Aircraft Carriers from Gordon Browns constituency - one of which is scheduled for mothballing already - and for neither of which are suitable aircraft in sight
Brought huge number of employed people into welfare, government control and socialism with Tax Credits
Presided over moral meltdown and continuing rise of single parenthood, crime, gambling and drinking.
Misused the honours system
Scrapped HMS Britannia
Took expenses abuse to new levels
Enacted Human Rights Act
Introduced "Court of Protection"
Handed power to unelected idiot incapable of winning election
Dissipated the public purse
Slashed the armed forces
Gave GPs ludicrous contract
Engaged in "open door" immigration policy for political purposes
Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ?
I certainly never said they did no wrong but if i have to take issue with your list then i'll ask why you consider enacting the human rights act a bad thing.
Original post by DanB1991
Yes and no...
Good in the regard you have to be paid a certain amount.
Bad in it's implementation as it actually encourages age discrimination against young people.
Good in the regard you have to be paid a certain amount.
Bad in it's implementation as it actually encourages age discrimination against young people.
Encourage age discrimination in which way exactly? I thought the reduced rate meant employers are more likely to take on young people as they have cheaper wages to those 21 and above.
Original post by Quady
Hardly like they or any Govt would cut public spending by a £120bn (aka a fifth of spending) in the space of two years as tax revenues collpase.
Perhaps they should have run a £100bn surplus to protect against such scenarios...
Perhaps they should have run a £100bn surplus to protect against such scenarios...
While ludicrous in our political system it's not a bad idea. Common sense should tell politicians that since the average recession takes 3% of GDP they should try and run a 3% surplus.
Original post by Rakas21
I have to say that your a political puzzle. There are times you come across as very pro-business/aspiration but then you seem to support high taxes and glue yourself to Labour.
I certainly never said they did no wrong but if i have to take issue with your list then i'll ask why you consider enacting the human rights act a bad thing.
I certainly never said they did no wrong but if i have to take issue with your list then i'll ask why you consider enacting the human rights act a bad thing.
Enacting the Human Rights Act simply transferred sovereignty wholesale. Even worse the scale of that transfer is disguised and not expressly spelled out. No one can any longer answer the simple but fundamental question: Who makes the law in the UK?
Original post by Quady
Hardly like they or any Govt would cut public spending by a £120bn (aka a fifth of spending) in the space of two years as tax revenues collpase.
Perhaps they should have run a £100bn surplus to protect against such scenarios...
Perhaps they should have run a £100bn surplus to protect against such scenarios...
Why were we running at a ~£40billion borrowing sum year on year during a time of 'boom' to begin with?
Labour have been staunch critics of the austerity measures that have been put into place. What was their idea? To keep spending as tax revenues collapsed?!
Original post by Rakas21
I have to say that your a political puzzle. There are times you come across as very pro-business/aspiration but then you seem to support high taxes and glue yourself to Labour.
I certainly never said they did no wrong but if i have to take issue with your list then i'll ask why you consider enacting the human rights act a bad thing.
I certainly never said they did no wrong but if i have to take issue with your list then i'll ask why you consider enacting the human rights act a bad thing.
haha i am incredibly pro business. But both political parties are as bad as each other when it comes to taxes and bureaucracy but at the same time i have a great sense of justice. So i support Labour overall
Tories are clever in the way they like people to perceive themselves, I'm not apart of the 1% so i have no credibility in voting for them.
Original post by Old_Simon
Enacting the Human Rights Act simply transferred sovereignty wholesale. Even worse the scale of that transfer is disguised and not expressly spelled out. No one can any longer answer the simple but fundamental question: Who makes the law in the UK?
Yes, but it's a good act. The ECHR as well actually agrees with us 97% of the time.
The EU makes law on certain issues, domestic politicians on others. I don't see why it's hard to answer.
Original post by Rakas21
Yes, but it's a good act. The ECHR as well actually agrees with us 97% of the time.
The EU makes law on certain issues, domestic politicians on others. I don't see why it's hard to answer.
The EU makes law on certain issues, domestic politicians on others. I don't see why it's hard to answer.
Well how about this for ten points :
Should prisoners serving custodial sentences have a "right" to vote ?
Original post by Swanbow
Encourage age discrimination in which way exactly? I thought the reduced rate meant employers are more likely to take on young people as they have cheaper wages to those 21 and above.
Bangladeshi men have lower rates of employment than young people in the 16-21 age range.... would you make it legal to pay them less to encourage their employment?
Black people have lower unemployment rates than white people... would you do the same?
No! why? it's discrimination.
But if you decide it's about young peoples ability to do a job....
If you decided to reduce the minimum wage for over 60's due to them learning slower and less proficient at IT (while arguable is statistically supported at the moment)? No it would still be claimed as discrimination.
The whole argument on ability is rubbish, how many minimum wage jobs have you seen that actually require a highly professional skill that is not trained on the job? Virtually none. If you try and argue a 30 year old in supermarket worker deserves to be paid more than a 16 year old it is discrimination.
And working there for longer? Rubbish as well, seeing companies will give people who work longer pay rises.... unless your under 21-25 usually.
We have a society that stigmatizes the discrimination of the old and not the young. As a result young people these days are infantilised.
I admit the thought was there, but is a discriminatory law.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Bill_Gates
haha i am incredibly pro business. But both political parties are as bad as each other when it comes to taxes and bureaucracy but at the same time i have a great sense of justice. So i support Labour overall
Tories are clever in the way they like people to perceive themselves, I'm not apart of the 1% so i have no credibility in voting for them.
Tories are clever in the way they like people to perceive themselves, I'm not apart of the 1% so i have no credibility in voting for them.
Fair point,
That's a good point but it is to some degree genuine and borne out by the polling feature on the Daily Politics yesterday, The Tories at their core are not entirely for the rich, they are however for the optimistic (though rich people are unlikely to be as worried about the country as poor). I myself am probably a great example of the types who gave Thatcher her victories, i'm poor but confident about my future and opportunistic so for people like me lowering taxes and coming up with ideas like the right to buy are great in aiding me along my path to escaping poverty. Cameron needs to come back to this kind of mentality.
I don't really view Labour as having more of a concern for social justice than the Tories (most measures seem not to be substantial), but i do think that they are better able to exploit fear (Tories will take the NHS and your benefits away ect..). Ukip are of course much worse for these types, not only do they scapegoat immigrants and prey on fear in that way but their uber-conservative and would love to take away working rights.
..
Interesting how people vote for different reasons.
Original post by Old_Simon
Well how about this for ten points :
Should prisoners serving custodial sentences have a "right" to vote ?
Should prisoners serving custodial sentences have a "right" to vote ?
Those who have committed violent crimes 'no'. Those who have committed non-violent crimes (even fraud), yes.
That's a bad point though because i could just ask about the bedroom tax, that's not an EU measure.
Original post by Rakas21
Fair point,
That's a good point but it is to some degree genuine and borne out by the polling feature on the Daily Politics yesterday, The Tories at their core are not entirely for the rich, they are however for the optimistic (though rich people are unlikely to be as worried about the country as poor). I myself am probably a great example of the types who gave Thatcher her victories, i'm poor but confident about my future and opportunistic so for people like me lowering taxes and coming up with ideas like the right to buy are great in aiding me along my path to escaping poverty. Cameron needs to come back to this kind of mentality.
I don't really view Labour as having more of a concern for social justice than the Tories (most measures seem not to be substantial), but i do think that they are better able to exploit fear (Tories will take the NHS and your benefits away ect..). Ukip are of course much worse for these types, not only do they scapegoat immigrants and prey on fear in that way but their uber-conservative and would love to take away working rights.
..
Interesting how people vote for different reasons.
That's a good point but it is to some degree genuine and borne out by the polling feature on the Daily Politics yesterday, The Tories at their core are not entirely for the rich, they are however for the optimistic (though rich people are unlikely to be as worried about the country as poor). I myself am probably a great example of the types who gave Thatcher her victories, i'm poor but confident about my future and opportunistic so for people like me lowering taxes and coming up with ideas like the right to buy are great in aiding me along my path to escaping poverty. Cameron needs to come back to this kind of mentality.
I don't really view Labour as having more of a concern for social justice than the Tories (most measures seem not to be substantial), but i do think that they are better able to exploit fear (Tories will take the NHS and your benefits away ect..). Ukip are of course much worse for these types, not only do they scapegoat immigrants and prey on fear in that way but their uber-conservative and would love to take away working rights.
..
Interesting how people vote for different reasons.
Tories are not for the rich, Definitely aspirational thats what i was going to say. But then the whole talk only comes down to rhetoric. Coming from an economics background, i've seen no change. Merely mind games by the tory party to lead the masses in whatever direction they please.
As a business owner, they are on the race to the bottom. Which is not great for me as they are impoverishing my customer base.
Original post by Rakas21
Those who have committed violent crimes 'no'. Those who have committed non-violent crimes (even fraud), yes.
That's a bad point though because i could just ask about the bedroom tax, that's not an EU measure.
That's a bad point though because i could just ask about the bedroom tax, that's not an EU measure.
Should convicted Mafioso, if apprehended be deported to their home country -another EU state - Italy? Or does it breach their human rights if Italian gaols are a bit crowded?
Original post by Old_Simon
Should convicted Mafioso, if apprehended be deported to their home country -another EU state - Italy? Or does it breach their human rights if Italian gaols are a bit crowded?
Ideally, yes. But they can't legally stop us deporting him anyway, they can just potentially sue us if we do.
Original post by Mockery
Why were we running at a ~£40billion borrowing sum year on year during a time of 'boom' to begin with?
Labour have been staunch critics of the austerity measures that have been put into place. What was their idea? To keep spending as tax revenues collapsed?!
Labour have been staunch critics of the austerity measures that have been put into place. What was their idea? To keep spending as tax revenues collapsed?!
This is a fair point with hindsight. Not something anyone in the country/parliament was mentioning at the time. To their credit the EU did warn the UK it should be lower.
Strip out the £40bn and there would have been a £120bn deficit.
Labour planned pretty much the same austerity program, there was about £6bn between them and the Tories in terms cuts proposed at the last election.
The current rhetoric doesn't stand up, but the OP was talking about the last Govt.
[BThe OP was also asking for contributions from people who supported the last Govt, yet is filled with posts who sound like they weren't.
As it is this is just another ranty thread, which I guess is what the OP was trying to avoid.
Original post by Mickey O'Neil
No. They were and still are a massive joke and they only lasted so long in office because of the stigma around the Tory party that remained from Thatchers era. The number of people who vote Labour purely on the premise that they hate the Tories because of Thatcher is disturbing. The number of people who vote Labour who also fail to grasp simple economics is also disturbing.
But its okay as long as we keep giving away more money to countries like Argentina isn't it?
I'll be voting UKIP without hesitation at the next election. Im passed caring for other countries. I want the great back in Great Britain so my children can grow up with job prospects and common sense and not face the bureaucratic oppression that comes from being part of the EU.
If you wish to live in a country where your dictated to by a false democracy in Brussels then fair enough but just remember when you've rolled over just what your ancestors fought and died for in the 1940's. Im fed up of the clueless notion that the EU is democratic. If so, why aren't those in power elected? If so, why do we have to comply with their regulations and rights?
Dictatorship and tyranny all over it.
But its okay as long as we keep giving away more money to countries like Argentina isn't it?
I'll be voting UKIP without hesitation at the next election. Im passed caring for other countries. I want the great back in Great Britain so my children can grow up with job prospects and common sense and not face the bureaucratic oppression that comes from being part of the EU.
If you wish to live in a country where your dictated to by a false democracy in Brussels then fair enough but just remember when you've rolled over just what your ancestors fought and died for in the 1940's. Im fed up of the clueless notion that the EU is democratic. If so, why aren't those in power elected? If so, why do we have to comply with their regulations and rights?
Dictatorship and tyranny all over it.
I absolutely agree with you. Based on the evidence I have witnessed here and throughout life, the greatest pull factor towards labour is a over generalised stereotypical opinion of the Tories. Practically most but not all labour supporters shout "Tories only care about the rich" which is illogical but constantly advertised.
I have said time and time again labour have no economic argument and for someone to say they have a familiarity for economics is disturbing. They orientate themselves towards social policies and base their argument on that only. Even the shadow chancellor seems to talk more about the social issues rather than the economic issues.
I too will be voting UKIP. A scary statistic released not long ago was the fact 70% of our national policies are the result of the EU. They believe there is a model every country can follow and prosper under but the diverse world of politics, economics and demographics makes that impossible.
Original post by Rakas21
While ludicrous in our political system it's not a bad idea. Common sense should tell politicians that since the average recession takes 3% of GDP they should try and run a 3% surplus.
Completely agree.
Although it would have still meant a similar amount of austerity (gotta get back to the 3% surplus after the 6% fall in GDP)
However, as you say its politically very difficult.
Those who advocate such a position hate paying tax as much as anyone else and the idea of paying more tax than the state needs is found to be objectionable by them. Its a pretty impossible one.
I wouldn't mind people arguing for a surplus if they were a decade ago, but they weren't because nobody was.
Original post by Mockery
£159billion borrowed in the 2009/10 financial year.
Splendid job indeed
Splendid job indeed
In the last four years, the Tories have borrowed more than in 13 years under Labour. Borrowing was lower (when taking in to account inflation) under the last labour government than it was under Thatcher too.
Original post by SocialistIC
In the last four years, the Tories have borrowed more than in 13 years under Labour. Borrowing was lower (when taking in to account inflation) under the last labour government than it was under Thatcher too.
That's because the Tories are having to deal with the huge deficit mentioned while Labour inherited the best economic conditions in a century.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Why do people constantly hate people with degrees ?
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 3 (9ECO 03) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- What do I do with my life?
- Self employment
- Coursera and FreeCodeCamp
- Econ 15 mark essay
- Is a labourer a good career
- rejected from every part time job
- STEM is not the future !
- Should i vote Labour?
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Apprenticeships are for dumb people
- Tesco - work experience
- Becoming an accountant in my mid-20s without a degree
- Asda Job offer or not?
- Business economics degree
- anyone taking a Gap Year (Leeds)
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
Latest
Trending
Last reply 37 minutes ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 37 minutes ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
