Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    It all depends really lol

    Liverpool and Manchester are highly unlikely to ever have a Tory majority lool!
    That's kind of my point. The North is being generalised. I think it's quite likely that there are areas of the South that vote labour, and I'm sure there are many impoverished people down there too.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    Some of Tony Blair's most vocal critics were the unions; he went on to win three elections.

    I'm pretty hardcore in my support for Labour; not blindly so, but I see first hand every day Thatcherite policies did to areas like where I'm from. I work full time, and do lots of overtime, pay a fair amount of tax and NI, contribute to my pension etc. Never relied on benefits, worked since I was 18. I just have a social conscience, hence my support for the Labour Party.
    What exactly did 'Thatcherite policies do to areas like where you're from', LOL?

    Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher, and manufacturing declined faster under Labour....

    'Oh, I have a social conscience', that's all Labour voters need to do to justify their position, the occupation of the moral high ground. Yes, Labour always gives to the poor but always gives what it can’t afford. Yes, Labour are always the nice guys treating us all to sweeties. Yes, the Tories are always nasty *******s for facing up to financial reality. Yes, there will always be those that favour Labour because Labour tells them what they want to hear.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    Why should they, when there isn't an election for another two years? What possible purpose is served by dishing out policies in the middle of a parliament that we know is going to go on until may 2015? I'm not being silly; I really don't understand why you think they as a party should be committing themselves to policies when the reality in two years time may be far far different.

    The job of opposition is to oppose. Labour has supported the government on issues such as workfare, public sector pay restraint and Gay marriage, and opposed on issues they feel that are important to the people who elected them- That's what politicians are for. Indeed, on some issues Cameron has had far more opposition from his own benches than from the Labour Party (gay marriage, Europe)! It would be totally stupid of Labour to set out a full manifesto of committments at this stage in the cycle when there's absolutely nothing to be gained from it, by anyone.
    Without an alternative, there's absolutely nothing to be gained by telling the Coalition they are wrong either.

    If they believe the Coalition is wrong, they should give some sort of plausible alternative, or shut up.

    I can tell you exactly why they aren't setting out policies now, because if they were to do so, they'd be exposed as hypocrites trying to spend money they don't have when they finally have to face up to economic reality, as was Clegg regarding the fees issue shortly after the Coalition, or they'd be exposed as being no different than the Tories themselves.

    Their apparent mid term popularity is precisely because the Conservative led Coalition have been forced into correcting the out of control spending by the previous government, with the resultant economic pain, and Labour are playing to the gallery with the grass seeming greener on the other side effect due to the public perceptions of Labour opposing this economic pain (in spite of having no solutions), their popularity increases.

    However, when the election comes around and the electorate sees that Labour have very little of substance in their policies to differentiate them (when have Labour ever reversed anything the Tories did?) that's when we will start to see who is going to win.

    Oh, and the electorate don't really give a **** about where whatever party stands on gay marriage, workfare and public sector pay, where the election will be won or lost is on immigration, the economy and Europe.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    What exactly did 'Thatcherite policies do to areas like where you're from', LOL?

    Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher, and manufacturing declined faster under Labour....

    'Oh, I have a social conscience', that's all Labour voters need to do to justify their position, the occupation of the moral high ground.
    Regardless of who you blame for the wilfull neglect of communities affected by the decline of industry like steel and coal, Thatcher and her policies served to destroy entire communities and condemn a generation to the scap heap; she turned the police in to her own private militia and destroyed community relations between public and police that is still evident now in some areas; she's the reason hundreds of thousands of people eligible for social housing aren't able to get one... If you don't agree she was responsible, you should agree that her period in office was divisive and resulted in hardship for a great many people. There is a reason that the Tories are almost extinct in Scotland and a reason why many former industrial towns and cities are no-go areas for Conservatives.

    I don't think I occupy the moral high ground; I think the majority of people are concerned with the society they live in so I'd say I occupy level ground morally; it's people like you who occupy gutter politics aimed and division and conflict.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Without an alternative, there's absolutely nothing to be gained by telling the Coalition they are wrong either.

    If they believe the Coalition is wrong, they should give some sort of plausible alternative, or shut up.

    I can tell you exactly why they aren't setting out policies now, because if they were to do so, they'd be exposed as hypocrites trying to spend money they don't have when they finally have to face up to economic reality, as was Clegg regarding the fees issue shortly after the Coalition, or they'd be exposed as being no different than the Tories themselves.

    Their apparent mid term popularity is precisely because the Conservative led Coalition have been forced into correcting the out of control spending by the previous government, with the resultant economic pain, and Labour are playing to the gallery with the grass seeming greener on the other side effect due to the public perceptions of Labour opposing this economic pain (in spite of having no solutions), their popularity increases.

    However, when the election comes around and the electorate sees that Labour have very little of substance in their policies to differentiate them (when have Labour ever reversed anything the Tories did?) that's when we will start to see who is going to win.

    Oh, and the electorate don't really give a **** about where whatever party stands on gay marriage, workfare and public sector pay, where the election will be won or lost is on immigration, the economy and Europe.
    I think you're wrong- the next election will be about the economy alone, and unfortunately for Dave, he isn't doing too well on that score. I think Labour will have the added advantage that people in 2015, unless things improve drastically, will feel that they are no better of, or even worse off, after 5 years of agressive austerity. On the other two issues, people who care about Europe and immigration enough to base their vote on it will probably vote UKIP... All that will do is split the conservative vote, making it easier for Labour to take key marginals. People who are that worried about europe generally want to be out of it. The Conservative leadership wants to stay in europe, so the natural place for them to go is UKIP, not conservative.

    The last Labour government reversed a fair amount of what the Tories had done as far as I can see; section 28 was repealed, investment in the NHS was trebled, reductions in police numbers turned in to there being more police than ever before, Tory MPs paying their staff around 80p an hour turned in to the minimum wage being introduced, high inflation was turned in to stable, low inflation...

    I certainly care about gay marriage and the equality agenda in general, and restraint on public sector pay will demonstrate to the public that Labour are prepared to make tough decisions about pay and the deficit.

    Aside from all of that, my previous post stands- I think given the fact the boundary review was embarrassingly defeated and that it is very hard for incumbent Prime Ministers to increase their share of the vote (which Cameron NEEDS to do to secure a majority), that a Labour-led administration is the more likely outcome than a conservative one, and most analysits I've read seem to agree with this point. It will be difficult for Labour to win, but it will be far harder for Cameron to.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)

    I don't think I occupy the moral high ground; I think the majority of people are concerned with the society they live in so I'd say I occupy level ground morally; it's people like you who occupy gutter politics aimed and division and conflict.
    Your post says you do. Do you know the background to her election victory?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    Regardless of who you blame for the wilfull neglect of communities affected by the decline of industry like steel and coal, Thatcher and her policies served to destroy entire communities and condemn a generation to the scap heap; she turned the police in to her own private militia and destroyed community relations between public and police that is still evident now in some areas; she's the reason hundreds of thousands of people eligible for social housing aren't able to get one... If you don't agree she was responsible, you should agree that her period in office was divisive and resulted in hardship for a great many people. There is a reason that the Tories are almost extinct in Scotland and a reason why many former industrial towns and cities are no-go areas for Conservatives.

    I don't think I occupy the moral high ground; I think the majority of people are concerned with the society they live in so I'd say I occupy level ground morally; it's people like you who occupy gutter politics aimed and division and conflict.
    :nopity:

    So, basically what you are saying is that 'regardless of the actual facts, it was all still Thatcher's fault'? Truly, it's very entertaining.

    Are you saying that Labour had a better excuse to close those mines and industries than the Tories did?

    You forgot the shipyards. The left blame the shipyards closing on her too. Proposed to be closed in 1971. Kept open by the receiver, sold successfully to a private contractor, closed by Tony Blair. Not much fuss made about Tony closing shipyards, still ranting about how it was Thatcher, blah blah...

    Regarding social housing, I take it you refer to Thatcher enabling right to buy? That was very popular with Labour voters that was, actually giving them a chance to own something.

    All the decent hard working class people able to work hard, buy their home, work harder, move up in life, sell their home, leaving their former council house available for further letting.

    If the left had had their way, they would all be stuck on sink estates and the only further advice they would receive would be about their rights to further benefits.

    The actual reason there aren't enough social housing units available today is down to the last government who in spite of being flush with money throughout their thirteen years tenure did absolutely zero social housing unit building whatsoever and instead preferred to piss it all away on housing benefits for tenants in private lets.

    Housing benefits that would be paid whatever the rent was. Even if you had one tenant in a four bedroom house.

    Result, landlords increased their rents, and naturally, Labour kept forking out the cash. Not to mention increasing the population by importing immigrants to vote for them, fill the (mainly unskilled) jobs that were created and because they often brought their families with them, were often prioritised over others on the housing waiting lists.

    It's actually hilarious that you continue to blame Thatcher (and thus by proxy, the Tories) and support Labour in spite of it having been over twenty years since she left power, because Labour have had plenty of time and plenty of cash to reverse these 'disastrous Thatcherite policies'.

    If there is anything 'wrong' with these 'trashed communities' today, now over twenty years after Thatcher, it's because Labour left them to rot in the wilderness.

    But you know what, Labour must have thought these policies were fantastic, because how many of them did they change? Not a single one. More proof that Labour are happy to let the Tories do their dirty work for them.

    Oh, 'people like you'? A little personal attack there too, well, now who's stretching to gutter politics? I suppose you believe that all those who don't support Labour would have all the poor in workhouses and euthanise the sick and disabled too :rolleyes:

    Leftism is all about showing everyone else to be wrong without actually showing how leftism is correct. It's the politics of hatred and jealousy.

    It's the same way that (coincidentally) a child grows up with the same religious views as his/her parents and neighbours. He "knows" that his is the one true religion, but cannot sustain any rational argument as to why.

    Lefties "know" that Thatcher destroyed the UK coal mining industry, despite Labour making twice as many miners unemployed and closing far more mines than Thatcher ever did. You cannot make such an indoctrinated person see the truth no matter what ridiculous beliefs he/she has.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    I think you're wrong- the next election will be about the economy alone, and unfortunately for Dave, he isn't doing too well on that score. I think Labour will have the added advantage that people in 2015, unless things improve drastically, will feel that they are no better of, or even worse off, after 5 years of agressive austerity. On the other two issues, people who care about Europe and immigration enough to base their vote on it will probably vote UKIP... All that will do is split the conservative vote, making it easier for Labour to take key marginals. People who are that worried about europe generally want to be out of it. The Conservative leadership wants to stay in europe, so the natural place for them to go is UKIP, not conservative.
    Well, they certainly won't go to Labour. At least the Conservatives have promised a referendum pending negotiations...

    (Original post by euphful)
    The last Labour government reversed a fair amount of what the Tories had done as far as I can see; section 28 was repealed, investment in the NHS was trebled, reductions in police numbers turned in to there being more police than ever before, Tory MPs paying their staff around 80p an hour turned in to the minimum wage being introduced, high inflation was turned in to stable, low inflation...
    You seem to be confused. Much of that above is not 'reversing a Thatcherite policy'.

    LOL, reducing inflation is a Labour thing, is it? The fault of the Tory Thatcherite policies that Labour 'reversed'?

    Perhaps you should look at inflation from 1975 onwards. That high inflation that was brought under control pretty much by 1992?

    1996 - 2.4%, 1995 - 3.5%, 1994 - 2.4%, 1993 - 1.6%, 1992 - 3.7%, 1991 - 5.9%, 1990 - 9.5%, 1989 - 7.8%, 1988 - 4.9%, 1987 - 4.2%, 1986 - 3.4%, 1985 - 6.1%, 1984 - 5.0%, 1983 - 4.6%, 1982 - 8.6%, 1981 - 11.9%, 1980 - 18.0%, 1979 - 13.4%, 1978 - 8.3%, 1977 - 15.8%, 1976 - 16.5%, 1975 - 24.2%

    Seems to me that it was Thatcherite policies that reversed the rampant inflation, which just continued after the Tories' tenure.

    Inflation that was rampant under Old Labour was brought under control under the Tories. The only reason we had low inflation under Labour was Gordon dicking around with how inflation was calculated, and the entirely artificial method of removing house prices from the inflation calculation. So it was that we had years of double digit inflation of house prices, leading to the crash, but low inflation overall.

    Minimum wage? Cutting minimum wage was not a Thatcherite policy, indeed it didn't even exist before it was enacted by Labour, so how could they 'reverse it'? We are talking about policy reversals here. Perhaps you can let us know how much Labour MPs paid their staff at the time? It certainly wasn't six times the Tory rate...

    The police? Oh yeah, Just ask Jack Straw, you must have missed his comments on the police just before the last election. 13 years of Labour Justice policy, 13 years of Labour interference in the police and 3000 new laws, and crime was worse than ever. An epic fail. Of course, they can't really accept that, so like all good socialists they blame someone else - Thatcher of course!

    NHS spending trebled? Again, not a 'policy reversal'. With the likes of Stafford happening under Labour, and the not long forgotten MRSA incidents, can anyone seriously argue that the NHS is THREE TIMES as good as it was in 1997?

    Section 28? Well, I will give you that, Labour rolled that back. But in the grand scheme of things, it was a relatively minor policy point compared to everything else she did for the country.

    No mention of Labour's support for PFI, Labour's privatisation in the NHS or their liberation of the peoples of Iraq then? Funny that...

    (Original post by euphful)
    I certainly care about gay marriage and the equality agenda in general, and restraint on public sector pay will demonstrate to the public that Labour are prepared to make tough decisions about pay and the deficit.
    The electorate generally doesn't. As I said, they are not 'big issues' like the others. They are nice to have, but not a priority issue.

    (Original post by euphful)
    Aside from all of that, my previous post stands- I think given the fact the boundary review was embarrassingly defeated and that it is very hard for incumbent Prime Ministers to increase their share of the vote (which Cameron NEEDS to do to secure a majority), that a Labour-led administration is the more likely outcome than a conservative one, and most analysits I've read seem to agree with this point. It will be difficult for Labour to win, but it will be far harder for Cameron to.
    Well, that's your opinion isn't it. One look at Labour's economic policies (when they actually have any) and it will be a very easy choice.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    :nopity:

    So, basically what you are saying is that 'regardless of the actual facts, it was all still Thatcher's fault'? Truly, it's very entertaining.

    Are you saying that Labour had a better excuse to close those mines and industries than the Tories did?

    You forgot the shipyards. The left blame the shipyards closing on her too. Proposed to be closed in 1971. Kept open by the receiver, sold successfully to a private contractor, closed by Tony Blair. Not much fuss made about Tony closing shipyards, still ranting about how it was Thatcher, blah blah...

    Regarding social housing, I take it you refer to Thatcher enabling right to buy? That was very popular with Labour voters that was, actually giving them a chance to own something.

    All the decent hard working class people able to work hard, buy their home, work harder, move up in life, sell their home, leaving their former council house available for further letting.

    If the left had had their way, they would all be stuck on sink estates and the only further advice they would receive would be about their rights to further benefits.

    The actual reason there aren't enough social housing units available today is down to the last government who in spite of being flush with money throughout their thirteen years tenure did absolutely zero social housing unit building whatsoever and instead preferred to piss it all away on housing benefits for tenants in private lets.

    Housing benefits that would be paid whatever the rent was. Even if you had one tenant in a four bedroom house.

    Result, landlords increased their rents, and naturally, Labour kept forking out the cash. Not to mention increasing the population by importing immigrants to vote for them, fill the (mainly unskilled) jobs that were created and because they often brought their families with them, were often prioritised over others on the housing waiting lists.

    It's actually hilarious that you continue to blame Thatcher (and thus by proxy, the Tories) and support Labour in spite of it having been over twenty years since she left power, because Labour have had plenty of time and plenty of cash to reverse these 'disastrous Thatcherite policies'.

    If there is anything 'wrong' with these 'trashed communities' today, now over twenty years after Thatcher, it's because Labour left them to rot in the wilderness.

    But you know what, Labour must have thought these policies were fantastic, because how many of them did they change? Not a single one. More proof that Labour are happy to let the Tories do their dirty work for them.

    Oh, 'people like you'? A little personal attack there too, well, now who's stretching to gutter politics? I suppose you believe that all those who don't support Labour would have all the poor in workhouses and euthanise the sick and disabled too :rolleyes:

    Leftism is all about showing everyone else to be wrong without actually showing how leftism is correct. It's the politics of hatred and jealousy.

    It's the same way that (coincidentally) a child grows up with the same religious views as his/her parents and neighbours. He "knows" that his is the one true religion, but cannot sustain any rational argument as to why.

    Lefties "know" that Thatcher destroyed the UK coal mining industry, despite Labour making twice as many miners unemployed and closing far more mines than Thatcher ever did. You cannot make such an indoctrinated person see the truth no matter what ridiculous beliefs he/she has.
    So Thatcher didn't create disunity; didn't use the police as her own private army (Orgreave anyone?); didn't abandon entire communites and and an entire generation of young people to the wilderness? The drugs problem created in my town thanks to her economic failures is a myth is it? The fact that unemployment under her was close to 10% under Thatcher is somehow not her fault is it not? The army of homeless people who occupied our cities were actually not really there were they not?

    I think your assesment about my beliefs and support for Labour should be applied a little bit to yourself. I do actually remember growing up under Major, under the Tories. I remember my single mother struggling to feed us and make ends meet. I also remember going to school with a leaking roof and huge class sizes. I remember all that, and I remember how things got better as they years went on. My mum now owns a succesful pub, my brother is employed full time as a floor fitter and makes far more money than I do, and I've never been out of work having done various public sector jobs such as being a PCSO and working front-line in the health service. Do I think that my family would be where it was today without the investment in our society that came about thanks to Labour? Not at all.

    I have no idea about your personal circumstances, but I'd guess that you probably haven't had to struggle for anything. I'm not jealous of that at all- I actually think the upbringing I've had has resulted in my turning in to a relatively well-rounded individual, and I'd say the same about my brother. To say that I think it's disgusting that the rich are getting richer as there are young people in poverty and families relying on food banks isn't jealousy, it's called morality.

    Now, my personal experiences both through childhood and in the front-line jobs where I've dealt with all sorts of people, many of them hugely disadvantaged, has lead me to believe that the policies of Labour 1997-2010 actually did a lot of good for this country, and I included a list in a previous post, but gereally the themes of lifting children out of poverty, the Human Rights Act and the minimum wage are what I'd focus on. I don't have to justify my views to you and I definitely do not need to have them assessed as to their validity by you.

    I've also provided you with some of the failed policies introduced by the Tories that Labour subsequently repealed; section 28 being at the forefront of my mind. This country is more tolerant of diversity thanks to things like this, as well as the Equality Act. David Cameron, on taking office, even alluded to this fact. I, as a gay man, didn't have to suffer the kind of stigma and prejudice that other generations have had to suffer. Who do I thank for that? Do I thank Thatcher, the evil behind Section 28, or do I thank the people in the Labour Party who have campaigned tirelessly for equality regardless of gender, sexuality, race? Who do you think Nelson Mandela has more time for? Thatcher, who branded him a terrorist, or Peter Hain, a former Labour cabinet minister and well-known anti-apartheid campaigner during the 1970s and 80s?

    Hopefully you can see now a bit more why I'm as passionate about the record Labour left but also about the horrible things that conservatism has done? Thatcher created the selfish society we now live in, so you can't blame me for being utterly selfish and saying that me, as a gay man from a poor background, where none of my family have gone to university until me, am actually far better off thanks to 13 years of Labour government, and the same applies to my family and, I believe, the town where I'm from?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Well, they certainly won't go to Labour. At least the Conservatives have promised a referendum pending negotiations...
    They don't need to go to Labour, the fact they don't stick with the Tories will be enough


    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Minimum wage? Cutting minimum wage was not a Thatcherite policy, indeed it didn't even exist before it was enacted by Labour, so how could they 'reverse it'? We are talking about policy reversals here. Perhaps you can let us know how much Labour MPs paid their staff at the time? It certainly wasn't six times the Tory rate...
    But I bet you didn't get Labour Party politicians going around boasting about how little they paid their workers. The Tories opposed the minimum wage, so I guess the reversal is going from unfair pay to fairer pay.


    (Original post by marcusfox)
    NHS spending trebled? Again, not a 'policy reversal'. With the likes of Stafford happening under Labour, and the not long forgotten MRSA incidents, can anyone seriously argue that the NHS is THREE TIMES as good as it was in 1997?
    Do you really think that MRSA was never around in the 80s? Honestly? You know, I get told stories by my nursing colleagues of overcrowded A&E departments where old people were left on trolleys for hours; of people dying before being given their vital operation... Most informed people would agree that sustained and long overdue investment in the NHS has improved services drastically and now means we are ranked among the world leaders in terms of our healthcare provision and more importantly health outcomes. The icing on that particular cake is that satisfaction rates with the NHS under Labour was at a record high.


    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Section 28? Well, I will give you that, Labour rolled that back. But in the grand scheme of things, it was a relatively minor policy point compared to everything else she did for the country.
    So fairness and equality is a minor point is it?


    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The electorate generally doesn't. As I said, they are not 'big issues' like the others. They are nice to have, but not a priority issue.
    Again, easy to say if you're a well off white straight middle class man. I'm sure people said that about votes for women or abolishing slavery.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Well, that's your opinion isn't it. One look at Labour's economic policies (when they actually have any) and it will be a very easy choice.
    It is partly my opinion yes. The fact remains it is difficult for incumbents to increase their vote share and it will be more difficult now that Dave's boundary review has been sunk. Economically, it won't be difficult to appeal to voters after 5 years of falling living standards, stagnating wages and high umemployment.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    So Thatcher didn't create disunity; didn't use the police as her own private army (Orgreave anyone?); didn't abandon entire communites and and an entire generation of young people to the wilderness? The drugs problem created in my town thanks to her economic failures is a myth is it? The fact that unemployment under her was close to 10% under Thatcher is somehow not her fault is it not? The army of homeless people who occupied our cities were actually not really there were they not?

    I think your assesment about my beliefs and support for Labour should be applied a little bit to yourself. I do actually remember growing up under Major, under the Tories. I remember my single mother struggling to feed us and make ends meet. I also remember going to school with a leaking roof and huge class sizes. I remember all that, and I remember how things got better as they years went on. My mum now owns a succesful pub, my brother is employed full time as a floor fitter and makes far more money than I do, and I've never been out of work having done various public sector jobs such as being a PCSO and working front-line in the health service. Do I think that my family would be where it was today without the investment in our society that came about thanks to Labour? Not at all.

    I have no idea about your personal circumstances, but I'd guess that you probably haven't had to struggle for anything. I'm not jealous of that at all- I actually think the upbringing I've had has resulted in my turning in to a relatively well-rounded individual, and I'd say the same about my brother. To say that I think it's disgusting that the rich are getting richer as there are young people in poverty and families relying on food banks isn't jealousy, it's called morality.

    Now, my personal experiences both through childhood and in the front-line jobs where I've dealt with all sorts of people, many of them hugely disadvantaged, has lead me to believe that the policies of Labour 1997-2010 actually did a lot of good for this country, and I included a list in a previous post, but gereally the themes of lifting children out of poverty, the Human Rights Act and the minimum wage are what I'd focus on. I don't have to justify my views to you and I definitely do not need to have them assessed as to their validity by you.

    I've also provided you with some of the failed policies introduced by the Tories that Labour subsequently repealed; section 28 being at the forefront of my mind. This country is more tolerant of diversity thanks to things like this, as well as the Equality Act. David Cameron, on taking office, even alluded to this fact. I, as a gay man, didn't have to suffer the kind of stigma and prejudice that other generations have had to suffer. Who do I thank for that? Do I thank Thatcher, the evil behind Section 28, or do I thank the people in the Labour Party who have campaigned tirelessly for equality regardless of gender, sexuality, race? Who do you think Nelson Mandela has more time for? Thatcher, who branded him a terrorist, or Peter Hain, a former Labour cabinet minister and well-known anti-apartheid campaigner during the 1970s and 80s?

    Hopefully you can see now a bit more why I'm as passionate about the record Labour left but also about the horrible things that conservatism has done? Thatcher created the selfish society we now live in, so you can't blame me for being utterly selfish and saying that me, as a gay man from a poor background, where none of my family have gone to university until me, am actually far better off thanks to 13 years of Labour government, and the same applies to my family and, I believe, the town where I'm from?
    LOL textbook lefty.

    "You support the Conservatives because 'you never really had to struggle for anything'." You know nothing about me.

    Actually I support the Conservatives because I grew up under the Conservatives and under Labour and saw the damage the latter did to our economy.

    Unlike you, I don't vote for a brand, I vote for policies, and I even voted for Labour once.

    You vote Labour 'cos of Thatcher, innit? You'd vote Labour if they stuck a red rosette on a dog.

    And now it comes out, as a gay man (nothing wrong with that of course) of course section 28 and gay marriage are going to be important policies for you. Doesn't mean they are important policies that the majority of the heterosexual population would be too concerned with. Of course they support them, but given the choice over that or the economy, the economy is going to be at the forefront of their minds every time.

    And Mandela fit the definition of terrorist pretty accurately - i.e. he used terrorist acts to achieve a political aim.

    As for the rest, I've dealt with those in a previous post. Put the violin away, Labour did more damage to the industries of the north, and put many more miners out of work but Harold Wilson's efforts are hardly mentioned, even glossed over... Instead Labour supporters point to Thatcher every time. Refer back to my likening it to a religion in a previous post.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    LOL textbook lefty.

    "You support the Conservatives because 'you never really had to struggle for anything'." You know nothing about me.

    Actually I support the Conservatives because I grew up under the Conservatives and under Labour and saw the damage the latter did to our economy.

    Unlike you, I don't vote for a brand, I vote for policies, and I even voted for Labour once.

    You vote Labour 'cos of Thatcher, innit? You'd vote Labour if they stuck a red rosette on a dog.

    And now it comes out, as a gay man (nothing wrong with that of course) of course section 28 and gay marriage are going to be important policies for you. Doesn't mean they are important policies that the majority of the heterosexual population would be too concerned with. Of course they support them, but given the choice over that or the economy, the economy is going to be at the forefront of their minds every time.

    And Mandela fit the definition of terrorist pretty accurately - i.e. he used terrorist acts to achieve a political aim.

    As for the rest, I've dealt with those in a previous post. Put the violin away, Labour did more damage to the industries of the north, and put many more miners out of work but Harold Wilson's efforts are hardly mentioned, even glossed over... Instead Labour supporters point to Thatcher every time. Refer back to my likening it to a religion in a previous post.
    I did kind of already qualify my judgement with that fact that I knew nothing about you, it was an assumption. One that I assume is correct.

    The fact Labour supporters point to Thatcher should tell you something in fairness- the ones who lived at the blunt end of her policies are entitled to disagree with her, no matter how much your obvious female dominance issues mean you revere her.

    There is obviously not going to be any consensus here. I think you're an inconsiderate selfish individual with no regard for those worse off than you, who thinks the poor are poor because they choose to be and believes that the hundreds of thousands of people who claim that Conservative policy during the 1980s had serious negative consequences for them all dreamt it and that actually we all lived in a sunny utopia where rainbows and butterflies were the only interruptions to our happy, fair and equal lives.

    I will support Labour as long as I believe their policies support those who can't support themselves, enable people to succeed like me and my family have and create a fairer more tolerant society- that's all you need to concern yourself with; I'm not interested in reading your sanctimonious, patronising condescending posts any more because I recently found a grey hair, my first one, that I definitely attribute to arguing with people like you; I have no desire for any more.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    They don't need to go to Labour, the fact they don't stick with the Tories will be enough

    LOL. "Labour are bad but the Tories are worse"?

    (Original post by euphful)
    But I bet you didn't get Labour Party politicians going around boasting about how little they paid their workers. The Tories opposed the minimum wage, so I guess the reversal is going from unfair pay to fairer pay.
    Nevertheless, they paid them exactly the same as the rest.

    (Original post by euphful)
    Do you really think that MRSA was never around in the 80s? Honestly? You know, I get told stories by my nursing colleagues of overcrowded A&E departments where old people were left on trolleys for hours; of people dying before being given their vital operation... Most informed people would agree that sustained and long overdue investment in the NHS has improved services drastically and now means we are ranked among the world leaders in terms of our healthcare provision and more importantly health outcomes. The icing on that particular cake is that satisfaction rates with the NHS under Labour was at a record high.
    LOL, of course MRSA was around in the 80s. But you may be interested that it was endemic in hospitals under the Labour Government. "MRSA is thought to have caused 1,652 deaths in 2006, up from 51 in 1993.".

    Alternative (and peer reviewed) source here: "These schemes have shown both a dramatic rise in the total numbers of cases of S. aureus bacteraemia reported annually and an increase in the proportion of such cases that involve MRSA (from 2% in 1990 to >40% in the early 2000s), although the most recent data indicate a slight reversal of these trends."

    Yes, those aforementioned obsession with fulfilling Labour targets that caused Stafford is at the forefront of everyone's minds when they think of the NHS currently.

    Glossing over the fact that so much money was poured into the NHS, but since it isn't even twice as better, much of it was obviously wasted.

    Oh, and no comment on Labour privatising aspects of the NHS - even Thatcher knew not to go there.

    (Original post by euphful)
    So fairness and equality is a minor point is it?
    OK, stop there. Section 28 was not about restricting 'fairness and equality'. It was about not promoting homosexual relationships at the expense of heterosexual relationships. Homosexuality was not banned, and neither was the teaching of it. What was banned was the PROMOTING of it, and preventing having it shoved in impressionable young people's faces, many of whom would be confused about their sexuality.

    As a not gay person, yes, Section 28 is a comparatively minor aspect of politics compared to all the other day to day political shizz we have to deal with on a regular basis, and as the majority of the UK population aren't gay, they probably feel likewise.

    As you are a gay man, I recognise that your views may not be the same. For the record, I support it's repeal.

    (Original post by euphful)
    Again, easy to say if you're a well off white straight middle class man. I'm sure people said that about votes for women or abolishing slavery.
    Ah yes, comparing repeal of Section 28 to votes for women or abolition of slavery. Not. Even .Comparable.

    Actually votes for women and abolition of slavery were pretty big issues at the time. Like I said, as a gay man, your perception of whether S28 is a 'big issue' is going to be somewhat different to the rest of the heterosexual majority.

    (Original post by euphful)
    It is partly my opinion yes. The fact remains it is difficult for incumbents to increase their vote share and it will be more difficult now that Dave's boundary review has been sunk. Economically, it won't be difficult to appeal to voters after 5 years of falling living standards, stagnating wages and high umemployment.
    And the Conservatives can point to who was responsible for austerity being necessary in the first place, and they can duke it out in the debates and let the public decide.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    I did kind of already qualify my judgement with that fact that I knew nothing about you, it was an assumption. One that I assume is correct.

    The fact Labour supporters point to Thatcher should tell you something in fairness- the ones who lived at the blunt end of her policies are entitled to disagree with her, no matter how much your obvious female dominance issues mean you revere her.

    There is obviously not going to be any consensus here. I think you're an inconsiderate selfish individual with no regard for those worse off than you, who thinks the poor are poor because they choose to be and believes that the hundreds of thousands of people who claim that Conservative policy during the 1980s had serious negative consequences for them all dreamt it and that actually we all lived in a sunny utopia where rainbows and butterflies were the only interruptions to our happy, fair and equal lives.

    I will support Labour as long as I believe their policies support those who can't support themselves, enable people to succeed like me and my family have and create a fairer more tolerant society- that's all you need to concern yourself with; I'm not interested in reading your sanctimonious, patronising condescending posts any more because I recently found a grey hair, my first one, that I definitely attribute to arguing with people like you; I have no desire for any more.
    Could you throw in any more personal attacks?

    Actually, just like Thatcher, I love personal attacks, because it means my opponents have nothing left to argue with.

    The rest is just a rehashing of your hate Thatcher, love Labour posts, which is getting tiresome, when I simply asked you to justify why the left don't execrate Wilson for closing the mines. I don't think you even mentioned Wilson once, it's just Thatcher did this and Thatcher did that.

    And now you're running away.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Could you throw in any more personal attacks?

    Actually, just like Thatcher, I love personal attacks, because it means my opponents have nothing left to argue with.

    The rest is just a rehashing of your hate Thatcher, love Labour posts, which is getting tiresome, when I simply asked you to justify why the left don't execrate Wilson for closing the mines. I don't think you even mentioned Wilson once, it's just Thatcher did this and Thatcher did that.

    And now you're running away.
    No not at all; I didn't actually make reference to the mines once- I mentioned the miners strike and the effects of militarising the police. My argument isn't really about the mines, it's about the divisions and conflict she caused and that was prevalent throughout the eighties thanks to her policies. You made the link with the mines, and then asked me to comment on Wilson; I felt that kind of wasn't the point; Wilson didn't preside of riots, over police cover-ups on a massive scale, over the economic abandonment of entire communities (not by closing the mines, but by abandoning them after she had done so). You think the issue I have with Thatcher is that she closed the mines, when really it's more about the kind of divide and rule politics she employed that destroyed- and I don't use that term lightly- entire communities that were built on industry and condemned them to a years over poverty and under-investment.

    If you want I could go through your post and pedantically highlight your personal attacks levelled at me but the difference is, I don't care what you have to say


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    No not at all; I didn't actually make reference to the mines once- I mentioned the miners strike and the effects of militarising the police. My argument isn't really about the mines, it's about the divisions and conflict she caused and that was prevalent throughout the eighties thanks to her policies. You made the link with the mines, and then asked me to comment on Wilson; I felt that kind of wasn't the point; Wilson didn't preside of riots, over police cover-ups on a massive scale, over the economic abandonment of entire communities (not by closing the mines, but by abandoning them after she had done so). You think the issue I have with Thatcher is that she closed the mines, when really it's more about the kind of divide and rule politics she employed that destroyed- and I don't use that term lightly- entire communities that were built on industry and condemned them to a years over poverty and under-investment.

    If you want I could go through your post and pedantically highlight your personal attacks levelled at me but the difference is, I don't care what you have to say
    Oh you're back? I thought you weren't 'interested in reading my sanctimonious, patronising condescending posts any more"? You obviously do care what I have to say, evidence being your continual replying to my posts.

    Go on then. Highlight my 'personal attacks'. The worst I have said is criticism of left wing politics in general , that Labour are generally supported by the left, and labelled you a typical left wing voter who only supports Labour because they are 'not the Tories', anti Thatcher, and would vote Labour if the candidate running was a dog with a red rosette on. That's a true assessment of your political views - basically your belief that the sun shines out of Labour's arse.

    You cannot bring yourself to criticise Wilson even though he put more miners on the dole than Thatcher did, and you cannot bring yourself to lay the blame of communities being left (by the left) in an economic wilderness for twenty years on the government that were in power for more than half that.

    Thatcher did exactly what Wilson and Callaghan did with the uneconomic mines and industries, the only difference is that Thatcher refused to let the left's bread and butter - the unions - continue to ride roughshod over the country as they were allowed to do throughout the seventies.

    The working class absolutely loved Thatcher, because it was the unions who were preventing the working class from... well, working. So much so that they voted her in three times.

    Police coverups on a massive scale? Oh, Liverpool fan, I guess? A dig at Thatcher because she happened to be in power at the time of Hillsborough? The fact that you would even slightly attempt to blame her for that shows that you are running out of stuff to throw and are now simply scraping the bottom of the barrel. All rationality has gone out of the window. What the hell for? Was she there persoanlly directing operations on the day?

    I suppose if a Conservative MP had said "I do not believe that a further inquiry could or would uncover significant new evidence or provide any relief for the distress of those who have been bereaved." you'd accuse them of attempting to cover it up also, but oh no, that was a Labour MP, effectively blocking any further inquiries after the Stuart-Smith reported its findings. But then, in your eyes, no criticism attaches to Labour - well, the sun shines out of their arse, doesn't it?

    Abandoning the communities? Well, what alternative industries did Wilson and Callaghan put in place after THEY closed mines? It's not Thatcher's fault that miners left school with zero qualifications and were good at nothing much other than digging holes in the ground.

    She did not swoop in and kill perfectly good industries out of spite either. Coal and steel were already dead by the time she was elected. She just switched off the increasingly costly life support that was keeping these zombie industries running.

    Why would you want to keep an uneconomic industry running? How is it the government's fault when a national industry costs more to run than it brings in, and in the case of coal, it costs more to dig the coal out rather than import from Australia?

    Do you, and others like you, stick with a car insurance company that charges you £500 more than another, just to save those people's jobs?

    Do you refuse to switch to a cheaper energy supplier because of the effect you leaving British Gas will have on their employees?

    Do you heck. You don't throw good money away when you find you can do the same thing for cheaper, you look for the best deal possible and it amazes me that you think a government would be any different.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Oh you're back? I thought you weren't 'interested in reading my sanctimonious, patronising condescending posts any more"? You obviously do care what I have to say, evidence being your continual replying to my posts.

    Go on then. Highlight my 'personal attacks'. The worst I have said is criticism of left wing politics in general , that Labour are generally supported by the left, and labelled you a typical left wing voter who only supports Labour because they are 'not the Tories', anti Thatcher, and would vote Labour if the candidate running was a dog with a red rosette on. That's a true assessment of your political views - basically your belief that the sun shines out of Labour's arse.

    You cannot bring yourself to criticise Wilson even though he put more miners on the dole than Thatcher did, and you cannot bring yourself to lay the blame of communities being left (by the left) in an economic wilderness for twenty years on the government that were in power for more than half that.

    Thatcher did exactly what Wilson and Callaghan did with the uneconomic mines and industries, the only difference is that Thatcher refused to let the left's bread and butter - the unions - continue to ride roughshod over the country as they were allowed to do throughout the seventies.

    The working class absolutely loved Thatcher, because it was the unions who were preventing the working class from... well, working. So much so that they voted her in three times.

    Police coverups on a massive scale? Oh, Liverpool fan, I guess? A dig at Thatcher because she happened to be in power at the time of Hillsborough? The fact that you would even slightly attempt to blame her for that shows that you are running out of stuff to throw and are now simply scraping the bottom of the barrel. All rationality has gone out of the window. What the hell for? Was she there persoanlly directing operations on the day?

    I suppose if a Conservative MP had said "I do not believe that a further inquiry could or would uncover significant new evidence or provide any relief for the distress of those who have been bereaved." you'd accuse them of attempting to cover it up also, but oh no, that was a Labour MP, effectively blocking any further inquiries after the Stuart-Smith reported its findings. But then, in your eyes, no criticism attaches to Labour - well, the sun shines out of their arse, doesn't it?

    Abandoning the communities? Well, what alternative industries did Wilson and Callaghan put in place after THEY closed mines? It's not Thatcher's fault that miners left school with zero qualifications and were good at nothing much other than digging holes in the ground.

    She did not swoop in and kill perfectly good industries out of spite either. Coal and steel were already dead by the time she was elected. She just switched off the increasingly costly life support that was keeping these zombie industries running.

    Why would you want to keep an uneconomic industry running? How is it the government's fault when a national industry costs more to run than it brings in, and in the case of coal, it costs more to dig the coal out rather than import from Australia?

    Do you, and others like you, stick with a car insurance company that charges you £500 more than another, just to save those people's jobs?

    Do you refuse to switch to a cheaper energy supplier because of the effect you leaving British Gas will have on their employees?

    Do you heck. You don't throw good money away when you find you can do the same thing for cheaper, you look for the best deal possible and it amazes me that you think a government would be any different.
    Hmmm... Well I could reply by again pointing out what I've actually said rather than what you think I've said in relation to the mines and their closure, but I won't. It does however render your little spiel at the end pointless. The fact remains that it was under Thatcher that so much division and conflict arose and it was because of the way she handled things. Over-politicisation of the police and a total disregard for people affected by her policies in the long-term are things she can be blamed for and things you haven't so far been able to counter. You can't deny it [riots, conflict, division] happened under Thatcher and not previous governments and I think there's a reason for that. You disagree, I'm never going to agree with you. Leave. It. Out.

    Your comical little bit about what miners were good for is indicative of how you feel about working people and poorer people on the whole; that they are where they are because they choose to be and are happy to be. You think they've had equal chance to succeed and have chosen not to. I fundamentally disagree with that, and will never agree with comments like that so again, you might as well just leave it there.

    I'm not a Liverpool fan. And I'm not just referring to Hillsborough; there are other examples of the police institutionally being involved in cover-ups on a massive scale. Orgreave is one of those examples, where there is evidence to suggest that police statements were falsified; where officers were told what to write and examples of numerous statements where the content was almost the same word-for-word. This didn't happen to take place under Thatcher unwittingly; she gave the police a 45% pay rise almost as soon as coming to office; their conditions and pensions were improved markedly, beyond what other public workers received. They acted with impunity as a direct result of Thatcherite policies and their changing attitudes to the working class. Policing by consent was far from the case in this country, and you don't have to look too far to see that impunity extended elsewhere- the Met and Stephen Lawrence being the most obvious result of unaccountability and a culture of impunity that many people directly associate with Conservatism.

    Your assessment about my politics is just that; an assessment. Judging by your analytical skills so far, I'm not going to set too much store by what you say. I have given you my reasons for supporting Labour so far, have justified them, and have said that whilst I'm loyal to them I'm not blindly so. There have been issues that I think Labour has been or is now on the wrong side of. But the key is this: do I think Britain would be more prosperous, fairer and more equal under Labour or the Conservatives. The answer is Labour. If that were to change, I'd change. But judging by Tory policy since 2010 compared with Labour policy 1997-2010, I don't think that's going to happen. Now, because I hold that view, that this country is a better place because of Blair and Brown rather than because of Thatcher, and because in my previous posts I've given reasons why I believe this to be true, are you still going to patronise, condescend and generally just dismiss what I'm saying because you have somehow greater insight than what I do?

    I've laid out my experiences and my reasons, justified them and that's all you need to worry about. Stop. Being. So. Flipping. Pretentious.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    Hmmm... Well I could reply by again pointing out what I've actually said rather than what you think I've said in relation to the mines and their closure, but I won't. It does however render your little spiel at the end pointless. The fact remains that it was under Thatcher that so much division and conflict arose and it was because of the way she handled things. Over-politicisation of the police and a total disregard for people affected by her policies in the long-term are things she can be blamed for and things you haven't so far been able to counter. You can't deny it [riots, conflict, division] happened under Thatcher and not previous governments and I think there's a reason for that. You disagree, I'm never going to agree with you. Leave. It. Out.

    Your comical little bit about what miners were good for is indicative of how you feel about working people and poorer people on the whole; that they are where they are because they choose to be and are happy to be. You think they've had equal chance to succeed and have chosen not to. I fundamentally disagree with that, and will never agree with comments like that so again, you might as well just leave it there.

    I'm not a Liverpool fan. And I'm not just referring to Hillsborough; there are other examples of the police institutionally being involved in cover-ups on a massive scale. Orgreave is one of those examples, where there is evidence to suggest that police statements were falsified; where officers were told what to write and examples of numerous statements where the content was almost the same word-for-word. This didn't happen to take place under Thatcher unwittingly; she gave the police a 45% pay rise almost as soon as coming to office; their conditions and pensions were improved markedly, beyond what other public workers received. They acted with impunity as a direct result of Thatcherite policies and their changing attitudes to the working class. Policing by consent was far from the case in this country, and you don't have to look too far to see that impunity extended elsewhere- the Met and Stephen Lawrence being the most obvious result of unaccountability and a culture of impunity that many people directly associate with Conservatism.

    Your assessment about my politics is just that; an assessment. Judging by your analytical skills so far, I'm not going to set too much store by what you say. I have given you my reasons for supporting Labour so far, have justified them, and have said that whilst I'm loyal to them I'm not blindly so. There have been issues that I think Labour has been or is now on the wrong side of. But the key is this: do I think Britain would be more prosperous, fairer and more equal under Labour or the Conservatives. The answer is Labour. If that were to change, I'd change. But judging by Tory policy since 2010 compared with Labour policy 1997-2010, I don't think that's going to happen. Now, because I hold that view, that this country is a better place because of Blair and Brown rather than because of Thatcher, and because in my previous posts I've given reasons why I believe this to be true, are you still going to patronise, condescend and generally just dismiss what I'm saying because you have somehow greater insight than what I do?

    I've laid out my experiences and my reasons, justified them and that's all you need to worry about. Stop. Being. So. Flipping. Pretentious.
    So you haven't got any examples of my personal attacks then?

    The country is a better place because of Blair and Brown but not because of Thatcher? LOL, Blair was essentially Thatcherite himself, there were no pretenses whatsoever. And recent polls indicate that the majority of the population think Thatcher was the greatest ever postwar PM.

    Now compare the country when Blair took over from the Tories and then when the Coalition took over from Labour. Even Tony Blair remarked what a good state the finances of the country were in when he came to power, now compare that to Labour leaving messages for their incoming ministers - "Sorry, there's no money left".

    Over politicisation of the police under Thatcher? If you want to talk about politicisation of the police, look no further than New Labour. The police ceased to be a force and became a service. They ceased to be a crime-fighting operation and became instead an instrument for the imposition of political correctness. New Labour came in to power with a set of beliefs about minorities of all sorts, and sought to make the police the enforcers of that creed. The wheels fell off at that point.

    As regarding riots, conflict and division - I'm guessing you refer to the police battling the picketing miners, well, much of that is the fault of Scargill. If the Tories had placed Scargill as a deep cover mole to destroy the mining unions, they could not have done a better job. Ironically there was always room for a profitable slimmed down coal mining industry in the UK, but he never saw that, unlike Joe Gormley.

    Scargill used the miners as his own personal army in the fight against Thatcher, and lost. You blame Thatcher for the war, but if the miners had gone quietly (like they did under Wilson), there would have been no rioting and no conflict and certainly no division.

    Incidentally, what is the difference in a miner being put out of work because Wilson closed an uneconomic pit and Thatcher closing an uneconomic pit? The pit is still closed, the only difference is Scargill kicking off. You can tell it was Scargill's own private war by the way that the majority of the miners didn't want to strike - the reason Scargill didn't ballot the NUM, and the reason why flying pickets were necessary (I suppose Thatcher is responsible for that conflict too? to disrupt the rest of the UK mining industry that wasn't affected by closures.

    Do I think Britain would be better off under Labour or the Conservatives? Yes, the country is going through a state of painful austerity and that isn't great, but it's a state of austerity that is necessary because of the way the economy was left by Gordon Brown in 2010. There was no money left. Wasn't it also the case that the left had to go crawling to the IMF for a bailout in the 70s because they ran out of money.

    New Labour messed up everything they touched.

    Successful economies always need immigration to continue succeeding with the added advantage that any immigration can actually work like a turbo charger on all the economic success.

    Labour inherited a successful economy then proceeded to do all the things, increased taxes, increased borrowing and growing the public sector (the big state) calculated to put all that success into reverse gear.

    Then the dozy idiots went and invited in all the immigrants to serve the jobs boom they had created, not by economic success, but by growing the public sector. It was just another of their pinheaded deluded money for nothing schemes like the housing boom.

    Well, here we are, thirteen years of Labour, a public sector deficit greater than Winston Churchill needed to fight WW2 and you know what all that spending and borrowing, for the life of me, I can’t see what we've benefited from any of it.

    I mean, what have we actually got to show for all that spending and black hole of debt? At least if you max out your credit card you can point to the home cinema or a new extension but what can New Labour point to other than arse scratching Guardian readers in non jobs. The last thirteen years of Labour had seen our economy become entirely dysfunctional.

    Where the balance between the size of the public sector and the size of the private sector that pays for it became completely out of sync, to the tune of our economy ending up the best part of a trillion pounds in debt.

    To have things like health care, education and the welfare state requires the means to pay for them. Labour not only went a long way towards destroying those sectors of the economy that could pay for all of that but, far worse, borrowed way beyond any ability to pay for most of it.

    We are where we are and something now has to give until a prosperous private sector can re-emerge and once again provide the means to do all of that good stuff without bankrupting our nation.

    Thankfully, all is not lost because Labour were more than happy to leave much of the public sector completely useless, beyond compare, and therefore there is plenty of scope for it to be reformed to provide the same or more for much less.

    The other part of the equation is to grow the private sector, that takes longer but again, thanks to Labour’s idiotic business taxes, there is plenty of scope there for remedy.

    It's not coincidence either that every time the Tories are returned to power they inherit a basket case economy left over from Labour.

    In the meantime, everyone tightens their belts, including the unemployed, because the money just ran out and the scope for putting up taxes (VAT excepted) even more just doesn't exist, it would be flogging a dead horse.

    I'll readily admit Cameron isn't great, but he's the best of the bunch currently - Miliband and Labour are much worse.

    I'm going to wait and see what state the country is in before deciding in 2015, but you have already decided to vote Labour (cos of Thatcher, obviously). As of yet they have absolutely no policies (as you readily admit) so how can anyone even consider voting for them, unless it's because they are the 'not the Tories' party?

    That's how I know you would vote Labour if the candiate was a dog with a red rosette on it. No intelligent (or otherwise) assessment of their policies, because they don't have any.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I think you’re in the political closet, struggling with some unrequited Labour sympathies. The louder you shout, the more you try to ignore it, the more obvious it becomes to us bystanders.

    Go on, give in. Be true to yourself. Join the Labour party. We’re very nice.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.