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

Labour is making a tit of itself in opposition Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The sad reflection on democracy being that Labour could say that their policy is to kill all newborns, and they would still get elected the next election. People will blame Tories for the cuts and their effects, and condemn the Lib Dems for obvious reasons.

    Same has happened with the midterms in the USA. Basically, (most of) the electorate is utterly stupid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Let's be straight with this, how could someone still resort into voting Labour despite everything they have done over the past few years?
    Maybe because without Blair's welfare policies, I'd have spent at least 2 years of my life in a hostel, and the remainder of my childhood on a council estate?

    I do not understand.
    Exactly, you don't understand. You have absolutely no idea what life is like for most people in this country. An economy should give back to everyone who works for it, not just to those at the top - those with the easiest jobs in terms of physical and psychological stress :rolleyes:

    This is why the Labour movement began - we had a ****ing empire, yet most of its citizens (citizens in its mother country) were living in squalor.

    This is why people are reluctant to vote Conservative, even when 90% of the media tells them to.

    Are there still people in this country who believe outdated dogma with regards to the Conservative party? "They are for the rich" - please, spare yourself.

    They certainly aren't for the poor though either. A party should be for everybody, hence Brown's election slogan - "A Future Fair for All".


    So basically, your only response to anyone's support of the Labour party, or indeed opposition to the Conservative party, is to put words into their mouth? Debate doesn't work like that dearie :no:, maybe you should run along and make some new friends in the 'chat' forum.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deadly Lightshade)
    Labour's portrayal of the coalition government is laughable.

    All this talk of 'extreme right wing government'; 'rightwing coalition dominated by the Conservatives' is utterly laughable. Calling Cameron 'extreme right wing' is like the Tea Party calling Obama 'extreme left wing'.

    It seems the party line is to try to dig up the old anti-Tory 'Nasty Party' chestnut. This, I imagine, will fail spectacularly.
    Conversely, the coalition is making a tit of itself in government.
    So that begs the question, who is the bigger tit?
    At least Labour seem to be able to organise themselves, and be tits together. The coalition seems to be doing a good impression of a headless chicken.

    All politicians are tits. That's how they work.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Are there still people in this country who believe outdated dogma with regards to the Conservative party? "They are for the rich" - please, spare yourself.
    In all fairness, a few points ..

    - They cut child benefit (Using a system which punishes single parent families)
    - They cut EMA
    - They created a (basically) free market university system (Admittedly the new system doesn't actually punish people because of their background but the principle is still there)
    - They wanted to abolish the 50p tax rate

    Regardless of whether or not you agree with those ideas, it's very hard to claim that the "They're a party for the rich" claim is 'outdated dogma'. Even if they're not a party exclusively for the rich, they're most definitely a party for the upper-middle class.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by Barden)
      Maybe because without Blair's welfare policies, I'd have spent at least 2 years of my life in a hostel, and the remainder of my childhood on a council estate?
      You do know that is the reality for thousands of children today, despite Blair's welfare policies?

      Exactly, you don't understand. You have absolutely no idea what life is like for most people in this country.
      You sure about that? You do not know about my background (and please, don't presume anything).

      An economy should give back to everyone who works for it, not just to those at the top - those with the easiest jobs in terms of physical and psychological stress :rolleyes:
      Yes, everyone - including the lower, working, middle and upper classes. Just didn't happen in the reign of Labour.

      This is why the Labour movement began - we had a ****ing empire, yet most of its citizens (citizens in its mother country) were living in squalor.
      And still are.

      This is why people are reluctant to vote Conservative, even when 90% of the media tells them to.
      Yes, because the Tories are so bad and the Labour party are so good. :rolleyes: Giving out lots of benefits doesn't make a good government in my books.

      They certainly aren't for the poor though either. A party should be for everybody, hence Brown's election slogan - "A Future Fair for All".
      Neither is the Labour party.

      So basically, your only response to anyone's support of the Labour party, or indeed opposition to the Conservative party, is to put words into their mouth? Debate doesn't work like that dearie :no:, maybe you should run along and make some new friends in the 'chat' forum.
      What? :lolwut:

      So far you have given me incoherent reasons as to why people continue to support the Labour party.
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
        In all fairness, a few points ..

        - They cut child benefit (Using a system which punishes single parent families)
        - They cut EMA
        - They created a (basically) free market university system (Admittedly the new system doesn't actually punish people because of their background but the principle is still there)
        - They wanted to abolish the 50p tax rate

        Regardless of whether or not you agree with those ideas, it's very hard to claim that the "They're a party for the rich" claim is 'outdated dogma'. Even if they're not a party exclusively for the rich, they're most definitely a party for the upper-middle class.
        *Just so you know, they cut child benefit for the higher-rate taxpayers which is pretty reasonable, don't you think?

        *EMA - should never have been introduced. Subsidised travel is what is needed (+ other reforms).

        *Oh God almighty. :facepalm2: The university proposals were done independently by Browne at the time when Labour were still in government. Had Labour won the election, they would have implemented the very same university proposals etc etc. Oh and do you not remember that Labour actually introduced tuition fees in the first place?

        *And so it should be abolished.

        Sorry but on what basis do you say that they're a "party for the upper-middle class"? So giving out benefits, having higher rates of taxation and government-subsided university education would mean the government is for everyone? That's just pathetic.

        Why are you against a free market university system anyways?
        • Offline

          2
          (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
          In all fairness, a few points ..

          - They cut child benefit (Using a system which punishes single parent families)
          - They cut EMA
          - They created a (basically) free market university system (Admittedly the new system doesn't actually punish people because of their background but the principle is still there)
          - They wanted to abolish the 50p tax rate

          Regardless of whether or not you agree with those ideas, it's very hard to claim that the "They're a party for the rich" claim is 'outdated dogma'. Even if they're not a party exclusively for the rich, they're most definitely a party for the upper-middle class.
          Those policies tend to help all taxpayers, not only upper middle class ones and above. The tuition fees policy actually makes the poorest 20% of graduates better off than they are presently, so thats all a battle for the continuation of a middle class subsidy, surely not the main priority right now.

          How much have revenues even increased due to the 50p tax rate? We can't get out of this debt by raising taxes (laffer curve), public sector spending needs to be cut. As I said earlier, November saw record levels of borrowing - do you think its fair for the next generation to pay for the spending of today?

          (I'm not a conservative by the way, just for the record.)
          Offline

          19
          ReputationRep:
          It's a long time to the next election. Thatcher was unpopular in 1980 and 1981.
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by im so academic)
          You do know that is the reality for thousands of children today, despite Blair's welfare policies?
          But certainly fewer.


          You sure about that? You do not know about my background (and please, don't presume anything).
          We've had many interactions on TSR, including a 'delightful' PM conversation in case you don't remember.

          Yes, everyone - including the lower, working, middle and upper classes. Just didn't happen in the reign of Labour.
          They at least strive towards it. Unlike the Tories.

          And still are.
          Pfft everyone has access to: free education until the age of 18, housing, sanitation, clean water, food, clothing, healthcare...

          Is that squalor?

          Just because the Tories wouldn't do away with all that now, doesn't mean they can be excused for opposing welfare implementation in the past - for if they'd never been ousted then we'd never have had any of these things implemented in the first place.

          Yes, because the Tories are so bad and the Labour party are so good. :rolleyes: Giving out lots of benefits doesn't make a good government in my books.
          It does in mine. Whats the point in having a pile of resources if you're just going to sit on it?

          Neither is the Labour party.
          It strives to be.

          What? :lolwut:

          So far you have given me incoherent reasons as to why people continue to support the Labour party.
          I really haven't.
          • Offline

            13
            (Original post by Barden)
            But certainly fewer.
            What? That's not the point. The fact is that it still exists, and I'll even bet the numbers have probably risen.

            We've had many interactions on TSR, including a 'delightful' PM conversation in case you don't remember.
            Yes, I do remember that "delightful" PM converstion.

            They at least strive towards it. Unlike the Tories.
            :rofl: But in all seriousness, this is not laughing matter. Just because they strive for it, it doesn't make them a better government. Are you actually for real?

            Pfft everyone has access to: free education until the age of 18, housing, sanitation, clean water, food, clothing, healthcare...

            Is that squalor?

            Just because the Tories wouldn't do away with all that now, doesn't mean they can be excused for opposing welfare implementation in the past - for if they'd never been ousted then we'd never have had any of these things implemented in the first place.
            Yes, because under Labour, everyone had a good standard of each one of those things you have listed. Doesn't take away Labour's contribution to the social problems we are having.

            It does in mine. Whats the point in having a pile of resources if you're just going to sit on it?
            That's not how a government should operate. Even if everyone has a "higher standard" of living.

            It strives to be.
            Sure. :rolleyes:
            Offline

            1
            ReputationRep:
            Sorry but on what basis do you say that they're a "party for the upper-middle class"? So giving out benefits, having higher rates of taxation and government-subsided university education would mean the government is for everyone? That's just pathetic.

            Why are you against a free market university system anyways?
            To clarify I'm not debating as to whether these points are right or not, just showing that they're not exactly proving to be a party that represents everybody. Please don't simplify things so much, but you're right that an increased welfare state (Which I know you instantly see as a bad thing but there you go), more easily available education and slightly more re-distribution of wealth does make the government represent more sections of society. I know you don't agree with those policies, but they are policies which help the poorer sections of society and as a result, make the government represent everybody a bit more, and the fact remains that the Tories are repealing these policies.

            And I'm not against the new university system, I never said I was. I think it's an improvement as the system of repayments is more sensible than the old system, but I brought it up because the principle of a free market university system is fairly elitist. I know it was originally commissioned by Labour, and had it been implemented by Labour it wouldn't change that its (in principle) a fairly elitist system. I'm not unequivocally defending Labour, but overall it is safe to say that the Tories represent the interests of the upper-middle class more so than other parties.

            (Original post by CandyFlipper)
            How much have revenues even increased due to the 50p tax rate? We can't get out of this debt by raising taxes (laffer curve), public sector spending needs to be cut. As I said earlier, November saw record levels of borrowing - do you think its fair for the next generation to pay for the spending of today?

            (I'm not a conservative by the way, just for the record.)
            I have no idea how much revenue actually changed because of the tax rate. Bear in mind I'm just playing devil's advocate and I'm not attacking the Conservatives necessarily for these plans, just looking at them more more neutrally in terms of who they benefit, and abolishing the 50p tax rate does instantly benefit the upper-middle class. Whether or not that is a good thing is a whole other debate, but in terms of who it benefits it is quite clear.

            I know you could argue that the Conservatives did it because increasing taxes often has the opposite desired effect, they need to reduce public spending and increase consumer spending, and removing taxes is a way of doing that etc. etc, but I'm a bit sceptical that those were their reasons if I'm honest. I don't know, but it appears more ideological to me than pragmatic.
            Offline

            1
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Barden)
            Labour are ahead in the polls...

            Make of that what you will...
            No they aren't. They are neck and neck.
            Offline

            1
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Barden)
            Fixed. They also opposed most of them...





            Don't make me post the graph :facepalm:
            What graph? the economy was booming in 97.
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by usainlightning)
            No they aren't. They are neck and neck.

            Go and look at the BBC poll tracker. On average they've been ahead for about a week. I think there's only one pollster who's still got them ranked second, and that's because they haven't polled anyone recently.
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by usainlightning)
            What graph? the economy was booming in 97.



            This one.
            Offline

            1
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Barden)


            This one.
            I wasn't talking about defecits i was talking about economic growth. The graph also clearly shows that even while the economy had been growing for 10 years (making interest payments realtively low), Labour ran defecits from 2002 onwards. We could have been in a much better position when the financial crisis struck.
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by usainlightning)
            I wasn't talking about defecits i was talking about economic growth. The graph also clearly shows that even while the economy had been growing for 10 years (making interest payments realtively low), Labour ran defecits from 2002 onwards. We could have been in a much better position when the financial crisis struck.

            It also shows that the Conservatives made even worse 'errors' (i.e. did the exact same thing, but in a shorter space of time and considering they had no global recession to deal with, to worse effect).
            Offline

            1
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by paddyman4)
            It would just be nice if we had an opposition that looked at cuts it disagreed with and took the effort to propose an alternative. Instead we have an opposition that looks at the cuts and then looks at what political opportunities the cuts provide them with.

            I like the coalition because I truly believe they are doing what they believe is in the national interest. They wouldn't be pursuing policies which will be so unpopular otherwise.

            Labour on the other hand spent 10 years hanging the country out to dry so that it could bribe and trick people into voting for them, whatever the cost to the country, and now in opposition is preparing to do the same.
            Well I didn't necessarily say from a political/economic point of view whether what Labour are doing is a good thing or not.

            All I'm saying is that it's a sound media/marketing strategy to come out of hibernation for a few soundbite jabs, especially while the government is looking slightly tense with Cablegate, a limping economy and pretty gloomy prospects for 2011.

            Christmas is also a good framing device, especially as high street retailers are struggling and the public is a bit down with the cold weather.

            Doesn't really matter what Ed Milliband says since the media is going to be on the side of the opposition. A struggling government creates more headlines/scandals than one doing well so all Ed really needs to do is remind the public who he is every now and then and avoid saying anything too ridiculous.

            And besides, Boris gets away with saying ridiculous things all the time so why can't Ed?

            The line 'this is all Labour's mess' doesn't change the fact that it is the current elected government's job to sort it out. Weren't the Tories the ones going on about responsible government?
            • Offline

              2
              (Original post by usainlightning)
              I wasn't talking about defecits i was talking about economic growth. The graph also clearly shows that even while the economy had been growing for 10 years (making interest payments realtively low), Labour ran defecits from 2002 onwards. We could have been in a much better position when the financial crisis struck.
              Pretty sure 08+ deficits were far higher than that actually, over 11%?
              Offline

              14
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by ManiaMuse)
              Well I didn't necessarily say from a political/economic point of view whether what Labour are doing is a good thing or not.

              All I'm saying is that it's a sound media/marketing strategy to come out of hibernation for a few soundbite jabs, especially while the government is looking slightly tense with Cablegate, a limping economy and pretty gloomy prospects for 2011.

              Christmas is also a good framing device, especially as high street retailers are struggling and the public is a bit down with the cold weather.

              Doesn't really matter what Ed Milliband says since the media is going to be on the side of the opposition. A struggling government creates more headlines/scandals than one doing well so all Ed really needs to do is remind the public who he is every now and then and avoid saying anything too ridiculous.

              And besides, Boris gets away with saying ridiculous things all the time so why can't Ed?

              The line 'this is all Labour's mess' doesn't change the fact that it is the current elected government's job to sort it out. Weren't the Tories the ones going on about responsible government?
              I didn't even disagree with you, I was just building off what you said - no need to neg me. :confused:
             
             
             
          • 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.