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

Why do Labour preside over most of the **** holes in Britain? Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Simple answer, Maggie:

    Because you ****ed them over.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by House of Jonny)
    Most people arent poor the word or rather the term is "less better off" or "low income" just like we arent rich just simply "fortunate" .
    Wow you are way too politically correct to be taken seriously. Evidently you have been brainwashed by the years of Labour rule.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)

    Labour tend to win in poorer areas because we are the only party that sticks up for lower income people and because Tory votes mostly come from disgusting, selfish morons who vote for them in order to preserve their wealth, and obviously these people exist in lower numbers in the poorer areas.
    If you really want to be a stereotyping idiot one could say taht Labour votes mostly come from disgusting, selfish morons who vote for them in order to preserve their benefits, these people exist en masse in poorer areas.

    Socialists are just as easily identifiable by the way they put their arguments forward (like a 12 year old in the playground) as much as the content of what they say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    Because people from low income brackets are more likely to vote socialist.

    Derp? What kind of idiot question is this?
    :borat:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because Labour try to be Robin Hood - they treat the rich as evil people to take from and hand it to the poor. If you make doing absolutely ****-all on benefits more attractive than doing a working class job (which there's absolutely no shame in) you're obviously going to get lots of votes in deprived areas.

    You need to tax the working class less but cut benefits - give working class people aspiration and the drive to try hard - unlike Labour, who tell these people they can just have it on a plate and sit there doing **** all. In fact - why not shoot out some babies? We'll give you a council house for life! Benefits do not increase social mobility one bit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    :rofl: state schools unfunded, under the last tory government yes they way


    thats a lie, 18 months waiting list under a tory government down to 18 weeks under later, not much fiddled there, 2 weeks if you are seen as a cancer patient, the tories want to remove that
    minimum wage is so much more than that, we need a living wage which would be about £7 a hour, minimum wage is a great move for this country



    :rofl: as if the coalition are doing anything, unemployment on the rise, welfare being cut, a lack of understand of the whole system, but its far to easy to go oh labour LOL welfare, while the last tory government pretty much put a million of welfare without caring, they want to keep the poor poor

    i mean lets cut education, let cut the uni teaching budget so uni become unfunded, real smart move, lets cut the NHS in real terms
    Can I just educate you on what that really means?

    In the past if you saw your GP and were referred to a consultant you went onto a waiting list. Now you go on a waiting list to go on the consultant's waiting list. So it can take up to six months or more to actually get onto the waiting list and then you have two or three months before your appointment. But the formal waiting list shows that you were on the list for three months rather than the actual 9 months in total that you've waited for.

    An example: My mum was referred to a podiatrist in March. She has just had her first appointment nine months later. Yet her time on the waiting list is only calculated from the day that the appointment card was sent out to her which was two months ago!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    Errr... the lives of the poor improved tremendously under Labour after the party ended 18 years of Tory misery. New schools were built, the NHS improved drastically, the minimum wage was introduced, museums were opened up for free of charge, pensions rose, child tax credits were introduced, and much more. The lives of the working poor were transformed. You have no idea what Thatcher did to them.

    Labour tend to win in poorer areas because we are the only party that sticks up for lower income people and because Tory votes mostly come from disgusting, selfish morons who vote for them in order to preserve their wealth, and obviously these people exist in lower numbers in the poorer areas.
    No idea what Thatcher did to them??? She made them fuc king work, something which Labour found impossible to do- in a time of economic prosperity we had more unemployed than ever and the number of 16-18 year old NEET's (not in education, employment or traing) was over 1 million... disgusting record under Labour!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AskMeAnything)
    Because Labour try to be Robin Hood - they treat the rich as evil people to take from and hand it to the poor. If you make doing absolutely ****-all on benefits more attractive than doing a working class job (which there's absolutely no shame in) you're obviously going to get lots of votes in deprived areas.

    You need to tax the working class less but cut benefits - give working class people aspiration and the drive to try hard - unlike Labour, who tell these people they can just have it on a plate and sit there doing **** all. In fact - why not shoot out some babies? We'll give you a council house for life! Benefits do not increase social mobility one bit.
    I think that you have to be really thick or detached from the working class world if you seriously believe that there are millions of working class people spending all their time calculating whether or not they are better off on benefits and making decisions on whether or not to work based on those calculations.

    In the real world many of those who are unemployed are unemployed for a reason - not fit enough for work, not educated enough for work, not able to concentrate sufficiently to work, not motivated enough to work, not experienced enough to get work. Or simply because there are no jobs for them to do in their area.

    My cousin has just started a new job. The qualifications required for the 14 jobs which were on offer were a handful of GCSEs. Out of the 14 who were employed 12 had degrees, and the other two had substantial experience in that area. So if you try to get that job with just GCSEs then you have no chance because someone who is better qualified that you will almost always get that job.

    If people can't even get school-leaver level jobs, then what job do you actually think that they will be able to get, if all they have to offer is GCSEs?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    Because people from low income brackets are more likely to vote socialist.

    Derp? What kind of idiot question is this?
    This.

    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    Anyone else find it somewhat bewildering how the residents of ****holes continually vote for Labour in the hopes that they will improve the area, when quite obviously the vast majority of these ****holes continue to be ****holes when Labour are in control of them? Got to hand it to you Labour supporters, your faith in politics is absolutely astonishing.
    Becasue the tories will make it all better :rolleyes:
    As has already been said, despite all their faults (no-one is claiming they are perfect) Labour did quite a lot of good in their 13 years in power.

    (Original post by ToeRag)
    No idea what Thatcher did to them??? She made them fuc king work
    No, she actually made a lot of them unemployed and destroyed communities (I quote - "theres no such thing as society").
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ToeRag)
    No idea what Thatcher did to them??? She made them fuc king work, something which Labour found impossible to do- in a time of economic prosperity we had more unemployed than ever and the number of 16-18 year old NEET's (not in education, employment or traing) was over 1 million... disgusting record under Labour!
    Every looked at the unemployment record under Thatcher? (Or major for that matter) Or the decline in education standards? Or the sudden and rather interesting changes in the way which people where catagorised as 'disabled' or 'unemployed' under her regime-she presided over massive, massive unemployment and under Labour that fell hugely as we can see from this data:





    As we can see unemployment reached around 10% under Major (1992) and dispite falling off as the economy grew it still was at 7% when Labour came into power. However innovations like Job Seekers allowance (labour) the minimum wage (Labour) and reforms of the benefits system means that often it is far more productive for the unemployed to find work that to sit on there arse-as reflected by the data which shows a huge fall under Labour. Indeed it is essentally impossible to sit on your arse nowdays without looking for work-anyone whose claimed jobseekers will knowb that. The bigget issue is actually finding jobs which are suitable for many claimants in the local area.

    Now to the question in, well, question. Why do Labour represent poorer areas? For one thing Labour actually cares and its councillors go a good job of working the areas where many Tories don't go and campaign. Labour tries to represent everyone and actually tries to help rather than the Conservative 'get on your bike' view which helps nobody and is incredably out of touch with the actual issues. Whiles its very nice to be all high and mighty when you come from a good school and a good home and have been fortunate enough to get on well in life its not so easy when your on the bottom of the pile. Empathy might be a good word for it...

    So long as Tories continue their retoric-which was aptly paraidied in 'The New Statesman' they'll never be successful in the less well off areas of the country.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Pretty hard not to notice this.

    Most places that could be deemed **** holes in terms of crime, gang culture, aesthetics, standard of living (and so forth) are presided over by Labour MPs or counsellors.

    Why is this?
    This is the case in most countries where political parties that offer the best deal for criminals or welfare beneficiaries get the votes of those people. It is also the reason why the Democrats in the US seek to import large numbers of poor mestizo peasants who will be future voters.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Which party brought us the NHS?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elliejellie3)
    Wow you are way too politically correct to be taken seriously. Evidently you have been brainwashed by the years of Labour rule.
    No I dont think so but that is open to opinion. I just think its not fair to label people as such. besides the terms poor and rich are kind of subjective. you can have different interpretations and definitions to the terms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    Every looked at the unemployment record under Thatcher? (Or major for that matter) Or the decline in education standards? Or the sudden and rather interesting changes in the way which people where catagorised as 'disabled' or 'unemployed' under her regime-she presided over massive, massive unemployment and under Labour that fell hugely as we can see from this data:





    As we can see unemployment reached around 10% under Major (1992) and dispite falling off as the economy grew it still was at 7% when Labour came into power. However innovations like Job Seekers allowance (labour) the minimum wage (Labour) and reforms of the benefits system means that often it is far more productive for the unemployed to find work that to sit on there arse-as reflected by the data which shows a huge fall under Labour. Indeed it is essentally impossible to sit on your arse nowdays without looking for work-anyone whose claimed jobseekers will knowb that. The bigget issue is actually finding jobs which are suitable for many claimants in the local area.

    Now to the question in, well, question. Why do Labour represent poorer areas? For one thing Labour actually cares and its councillors go a good job of working the areas where many Tories don't go and campaign. Labour tries to represent everyone and actually tries to help rather than the Conservative 'get on your bike' view which helps nobody and is incredably out of touch with the actual issues. Whiles its very nice to be all high and mighty when you come from a good school and a good home and have been fortunate enough to get on well in life its not so easy when your on the bottom of the pile. Empathy might be a good word for it...

    So long as Tories continue their retoric-which was aptly paraidied in 'The New Statesman' they'll never be successful in the less well off areas of the country.
    You can't just Google a graph and pass it off as your sole argument- there are multiple variables in what is now reported as Unemployment-

    Labour only include in their unemployment figures those actively 'looking for' and 'able' to work- so they removed those on Disability Living allowance from Unemployment data as well as those on Income Support (as opposed to Job seekers allowance)- (these are included in all data pre 1997)

    So if you are a parent with a child under 18 in education you are technically under labour unable to work (yep the hours between 9am and 3pm don't exist!!) and are entitled to Income support..

    Dont even get me started on DLA... (and before the TSR PC brigade get on their soap boxes I am well aware there are genuine cases)

    Labour have basically made it easier for people to live and remain on benefits as a lifestyle choice- rather than as a stop gap between employment... Just look at the increases (discounting inflation) in the governments benefits bill.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Poor people vote labour because they want the benefits that labour offer them.

    Basically, it's scum voting for scum so they can all collectively leach off everyone that has became even moderately successful in life.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    i used to think "im so academic" was the ****-of-TSR

    until i met this woman/thing

    fml calling her evil would be too nice
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    Every looked at the unemployment record under Thatcher? (Or major for that matter) Or the decline in education standards? Or the sudden and rather interesting changes in the way which people where catagorised as 'disabled' or 'unemployed' under her regime-she presided over massive, massive unemployment and under Labour that fell hugely as we can see from this data:
    Erm, was a report not published a few weeks ago showing how far we have dropped in the education league table while Labour have been in power? They seem to put equality in education above quality of education which I disagree with; if they were truly the party of social mobility they would bring back grammar schools.

    Why do leftists think if you’re not fighting for the poor your evil in some way? This attitude seems to cover all parties, during the fee’s debate in parliament all the MP’s were falling over themselves to show how good they were to the poor. Well you know what, I’m not poor and neither is the vast majority of the nation, so don’t proclaim how evil we are for not voting for a party (labour) or subscribing to an ideology (socialism) which will not benefit us in any way.

    The left do not have a monopoly on helping the poor, in fact its something they have continually failed on over the years, probably because its in there best interest to keep the poor poor so they will keep voting for them. Thatcher opened the door of opportunity to many working class people and started the entrepreneurial and the culture of aspiration which said ‘you do not have to work down the pit, if you have the skills and motivation go out and make something of yourself’. I paraphrase the late Dame Angela Rumbold, Tory MP for Mitcham and Morden in south London between 1982 and 1997, “the morally insecure Left hated hearing Conservatives talk about their plans for educating the poor and under-privileged.”
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Well you know what, I’m not poor and neither is the vast majority of the nation
    There are far more poor and working class people than there are rich and upper class people. Of course, most people do fall in the middle (still closer to the poor / working class side though).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    There are far more poor and working class people than there are rich and upper class people. Of course, most people do fall in the middle (still closer to the poor / working class side though).
    But as you say, not being poor doesn’t make you rich or upper class. The middle classes outnumber both of them combined yet are all to often ignored by the traditional left
 
 
 
  • 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 newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.