Coalition vs New Labour Watch

Poll: Have the coalition done a better job of running our country than new labour>
A lot better (15)
31.91%
A lot worse (10)
21.28%
No difference (8)
17.02%
A bit worse (5)
10.64%
A bit better (9)
19.15%
Moosferatu
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#41
Report 5 years ago
#41
(Original post by Rakas21)
If we ignore the Blair first term which would even have been good enough to get my vote in 01 then the Tories have been a bit better than the second and third terms.

Regarding the economy they made a mistake in cutting capital spending which delayed the recovery however they have made sufficient spending cuts to impress me (i considered the state quite bloated). On education they have been very good as they have also being in foreign policy and international trade. On taxation they have made the right moves raising the tax allowance and scrapping the 50% rate. On employment they have been extremely impressive with near a million jobs created once you deduct their work programmes, unemployment only rising due to public sector redundancies (the private sector never stopped creating jobs).

On health i think they have been average to poor as the reform was over-complicated and botched. On defense they have been far too severe in spending cuts and the delay in the carriers. On the environment they have been abysmal (badger cull, insufficient incentives for GM crops). On welfare they have been the worst government i have ever heard of, they have not means tested pensioner benefits, they have watered down the cut in child benefit, they did no planning or research regarding the bedroom tax and they contracted the disability review to ATOS who don't do their job properly.

In conclusion they get 6/10 from me and the Tories will likely retain my vote in 2015 (the Liberals have won it for the Euro's in 2014). To improve they should immediately sack Owen Patterson and Ian Duncan Smith. Laws and Alexander are welcome to defect anytime they like (very impressive) and Pickles and Willets are somewhat the unsung heroes working extremely well in the background.
Nice to see a good all-round assessment trying to be objective at least. If I remember correctly, you are a Conservative voter? They had my backing in 2010 and yet have disappointed on so many levels. The amount of blind partisanship on here, defending all their failings no matter what because hey at least they're better than Labour, is worrying for our democracy as a whole.

(Original post by KoalaElf)
I am sad to think about what might have happened to you to make you so lacking in empathy and unable to differentiate between what serves your personally and what is good for a country, the world or people in general.
Some men just want to watch the world burn. And capitalism often rewards these men.
1
reply
KoalaElf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 5 years ago
#42
(Original post by lucas13)
the government is still spending way more than it receives it tax revenues. what your trying to advocate would mean the government would go bankrupt. people are worse off due to policies from way in the past, things take a lot of time to have an effect so past labour policies mean the economy is uncompetitive now.
What exactly do you think this person is 'trying to advocate'? Why do you believe that the 'government' would go bankrupt? Please clarify your vague statements, so I can critically analyse your logic rather than wondering if you are simply repeating something you've heard somewhere.

Also do you really think politicians are living within their means? Considering they are paid from the public purse, if things are that bad, surely it would make sense for them to cut back themselves, not be asking for pay increases whilst claiming ridiculous expenses on top of their already high salaries? If anything will make us bankrupt it is this sort of behaviour, bailing out banks and holding no one accountable, cultivating a culture where corporations are above the law, or relying on an economic system that requires constant exponential growth to function whilst we live on a planet with finite resources.
0
reply
KoalaElf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 5 years ago
#43
(Original post by arson_fire)
That`s a bit harsh. The guy is just trying to look after himself and his family. If more people did this instead of expecting to get things handed to them on a plate and paid for by "the rich" the world would be a far,far better place.
You can look after others whilst looking after yourself. Looking after yourself whilst gloating over being able to make money out of (or potentially trampling on the wellbeing of) others looks more like wanting things to be 'handed to them on a plate' to me.

Thinking that the 'rich' pay for things assumes they are doing harder work than those at 'the bottom'. Bear in mind that the real wealth is not made out of paper money / numbers on a screen, but out of resources that existed before any man decided they 'owned' them, out of the hard work and ideas of thinkers, creators, inventors, artists, builders, labourers etc and all those who support them in ways that not rewarded monetarily. The 'rich' are not always so perfect as to have gained their 'wealth' (or the nominal representation of) through fair or honest means.

My tone may have sounded harsh, but I was only responding in kind. Being able to say 'I'm alright jack' does not constitute an objective analysis of whether a country is being run well or not.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#44
Report 5 years ago
#44
(Original post by Moosferatu)
Nice to see a good all-round assessment trying to be objective at least. If I remember correctly, you are a Conservative voter? They had my backing in 2010 and yet have disappointed on so many levels. The amount of blind partisanship on here, defending all their failings no matter what because hey at least they're better than Labour, is worrying for our democracy as a whole.

Some men just want to watch the world burn. And capitalism often rewards these men.
Thanks. Yeah, i'm a member probably until the next leadership elections. What have they failed you on in particular? For me although they have failed in several areas they have fortunately been secondary issues (i tend to vote on the economy, education and foreign policy/defense unless they were to go nuts and outright take a 'we'll leave the eu if we have a majority' for example). Indeed, you should watch the documentary 'Tory Boy' if you want to see blind political ignorance.
0
reply
lucas13
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#45
Report 5 years ago
#45
(Original post by KoalaElf)
What exactly do you think this person is 'trying to advocate'? Why do you believe that the 'government' would go bankrupt? Please clarify your vague statements, so I can critically analyse your logic rather than wondering if you are simply repeating something you've heard somewhere.

Also do you really think politicians are living within their means? Considering they are paid from the public purse, if things are that bad, surely it would make sense for them to cut back themselves, not be asking for pay increases whilst claiming ridiculous expenses on top of their already high salaries? If anything will make us bankrupt it is this sort of behaviour, bailing out banks and holding no one accountable, cultivating a culture where corporations are above the law, or relying on an economic system that requires constant exponential growth to function whilst we live on a planet with finite resources.
i think they are trying to advocate an increase in government spending. if the govt did this they would probably lose their credit rating which would increase the cost of their borrowing and could make them default on their bonds. i dont know why you think i advocate politicians having higher pay but even if we cut their pay significantly it wouldnt make much of a dent in the public finances. If they hadn't have bailed out the banks then a lot of normal people would have lost money and it could have led to other banks going bankrupt due to the freezing up of interbank lending and people withdrawing money from banks if they dont feel trust in the banking system. this could have led to a financial crises way worse than the one we had. corporations arent above the law just look at the amount they have had to pay in fines recently, ie JP Morgan's 13billion settlement recently.
also we cant just stop using financial resources and govt's are trying to use more non renewables.
0
reply
KoalaElf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 5 years ago
#46
(Original post by arson_fire)
How should we hold bankers accountable? We can`t put them on trial as being crap at your job is not a criminal offence. Many have had their reputations trashed and won`t work again, indeed a few are barred from working in finance (Jonny Cameron ex RBS for example). Again, the politicans that oversaw the whole episode were just crap at their jobs - quite a few lost their jobs in the last election. I`m not sure what else you can do to them.
I suppose I am thinking more about how we move forward and discourage the same things from happening.

We could at least avoid adding yet more moral hazard into the system with things like Help to Buy government backed schemes - it's like they saw what sparked the sub-prime lending crisis in America, and thought - Hey! lets make our own situation much worse… but of course not when we are in power - we'll set it up so things will blow up when the next government come in! I vote for less of the leaving bombs for the next party and more of the genuinely attempting to solve problems that affect our lives.

Maybe separate retail and investment banking (something similar to the Glass-Steagall legislation in US)? There has to be a way to prevent banks becoming too big to fail. Maybe ensure that bankers will forfeit their own personal wealth when they mess up, rather than continuing to receive massive bonuses whilst there are people queuing up at food banks and being terrorised for rent or money they don't have for a measly extra room.

Change the fractional reserve system - possibly to a full reserve system, thus preventing banks from creating money out of thin air (which in any other sphere would be deemed fraud).

Banks used to only lend 3x one persons salary for a mortgage, now it is upwards of 6x two peoples income - this could be limited to prevent losses to individuals and via the public purse caused by overvaluing and irresponsible lending, either via direct legislation or by ensuring that banks are genuinely putting themselves on the line when they lend.

Having said the above - I'm not sure whether fines really work for bankers at all at the moment...

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” – Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928)
0
reply
KoalaElf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 5 years ago
#47
(Original post by arson_fire)
Which corporations are above the law?
Maybe I should rephrase that as the corporations are writing the laws via powerful lobbying.

Have you watched The Corporation? Its a bit sensationalised, but definitely 'on message'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y888wVY5hzw

A good example is Camelot, who source empty property and charge a landlord money to provide 'security' for their property against squatters/vandalism, and charge a tenant less than the market rate. Sounds like a good deal right? Of course these people also lobbied HARD for the criminalisation of squatting - something which could be seen as sensible use of an unused resource by those who need a place to shelter. (Many are artists who add beauty to the local environment, and do the opposite of vandalise)

This is a very, very mild form of what I'm talking about - just the tip of the iceberg. People like Monsanto are advising the FDA in the US about food, health and environmental issues. They patent seeds, ensure legislation is passed in their favour & will come to completely own the food supply in time if not challenged - something which was once provided by nature for free, and will be a one-way journey if allowed to happen (much akin to enclosure movements - land existed before a man had the audacity to put a fence around it, say 'this is mine' and defend it by being bigger, having more friends or better weapons. Nowadays this aggressive act is normalised as 'ownership' with bits of paper and funny money swapping hands, with the force of law on its side. No one even questions it)

Where is the line drawn on what can be privatised, with money extracted (ie. labour) for the 'privilege' of? It is illegal to collect rainwater in some places now. Who really owns the rain? Will it be our air one day? Surely it is wrong to charge people for things that once 'belonged' to every living creature collectively, and especially things that are needed for survival.
0
reply
KoalaElf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 5 years ago
#48
(Original post by arson_fire)
I don`t know of any economic system less-worse than capitalism. Communisms already proved to be an epic fail. I don`t know what else there is.
The very fact that your first thought when considering alternatives, is about communism and how it is apparently self-evident (based on what you have been taught) that this always fails, shows just how much the current supposed 'democracy' has dictated to you the terms of your own engagement with the subject.

I am sure you have more imagination than this. Great minds don't accept the status quo, or what they are told - they question everything, think outside the box and find a new path.

Also just because someone claims something is communism does not mean it actually is - I thought that most examples held up as evidence were in fact state capitalism gone mad. Just because a few crazies get in power does not mean the entire concept has nothing of value to offer.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#49
Report 5 years ago
#49
(Original post by KoalaElf)
The very fact that your first thought when considering alternatives, is about communism and how it is apparently self-evident (based on what you have been taught) that this always fails, shows just how much the current supposed 'democracy' has dictated to you the terms of your own engagement with the subject.

I am sure you have more imagination than this. Great minds don't accept the status quo, or what they are told - they question everything, think outside the box and find a new path.

Also just because someone claims something is communism does not mean it actually is - I thought that most examples held up as evidence were in fact state capitalism gone mad. Just because a few crazies get in power does not mean the entire concept has nothing of value to offer.
I would agree with you not to
discount Philosophies. I've read Marx. A great read. The problem though is that it has failed everywhere where its been tried. Those places that its still holding on are likely to revert back to something akin to democracy in the future.
0
reply
Yi-Ge-Ningderen
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 5 years ago
#50
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
To be fair, a lot of that legislation is enforced on us through Europe. Legislation that Labour signed up to. Sadly in the world of Big boy international politics, if a previous government has signed up to something, you have to agree to it when you come into power.

Thersa May is already trying to get out of the ECHR legislation.
Well, I would argue that you don't have to. On a national level you can pull out of any contract you want to, as there is nothing any one can do about it. However with the cowardly leaders we have, there is little chance of that happening.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#51
Report 5 years ago
#51
(Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
Well, I would argue that you don't have to. On a national level you can pull out of any contract you want to, as there is nothing any one can do about it. However with the cowardly leaders we have, there is little chance of that happening.
Sadly though you can't just pull out. If you are treaty bound, you need to renegotiate. Otherwise you end up becoming the nation that nobody wants to deal with as you get a reputation for not following your word if you just pull out.
0
reply
Yi-Ge-Ningderen
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 5 years ago
#52
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Sadly though you can't just pull out. If you are treaty bound, you need to renegotiate. Otherwise you end up becoming the nation that nobody wants to deal with as you get a reputation for not following your word if you just pull out.
If you are powerful enough, it doesn't matter. ofcourse depending on the exact treaty. For example, the UK could ignore the ECHR and nothing will happen, countries wont refuse to deal with us etc.
0
reply
Moosferatu
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#53
Report 5 years ago
#53
(Original post by Rakas21)
Thanks. Yeah, i'm a member probably until the next leadership elections. What have they failed you on in particular? For me although they have failed in several areas they have fortunately been secondary issues (i tend to vote on the economy, education and foreign policy/defense unless they were to go nuts and outright take a 'we'll leave the eu if we have a majority' for example). Indeed, you should watch the documentary 'Tory Boy' if you want to see blind political ignorance.
Education and Welfare have been the greatest failings. I was all for Gove when I heard of his ideas for the education system. Unfortunately he has proven time after time that he is an incompetent egotist. He doesn't want to fix the education system at all: he wants to create a legacy and/or pander to imbeciles who haven't had any contact with a school since they left between age 15 and 18 and think they know how to fix the system. Welfare is also grimly depressing. I was naive in 2010 when I believed the scrounger could be smashed, but I've come to terms with the idea of the 'scrounger' largely being overblown and a scapegoating device to shield whoever is in government from any real criticism. Focus on Jobseeker's Allowance is a complete waste of public resources as it is other benefits that siphon money from the state. JSA is just a red herring really. They need to tackle Working Tax Credits and the like, which is basically the government admitting businesses are not paying their workers enough. And of course non means-tested benefits for pensioners, but no government is going to touch that. I also find it difficult to believe that they are the party of the working man (and before you idiot partisans jump in, I don't believe Labour is either) when they sell **** off to their mates in backroom deals, dressed up with the convenient rhetoric of consumer choice and freeing the masses.

Foreign policy/defence has been good, as is trying to mix Britain's economy further towards manufacturing and the like. Although part of me thinks those areas would be the same no matter what party was in power.

The Tories have many excellent ideas, it's just a shame they **** them up at every possible opportunity while shouting 'WELL IT WAS ALL LABOUR'S FAULT THEY DID IT WRONG NOT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE'. If a business hired a new employee, and they then worked there for years, ****ing up every task given to them whilst blaming their predecessor for all their problems, they'd be sacked. Yet our government seems to be getting away with it as far as popular opinion is concerned. I guess we have the tides of history to thank for that.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#54
Report 5 years ago
#54
(Original post by Moosferatu)
Education and Welfare have been the greatest failings. I was all for Gove when I heard of his ideas for the education system. Unfortunately he has proven time after time that he is an incompetent egotist. He doesn't want to fix the education system at all: he wants to create a legacy and/or pander to imbeciles who haven't had any contact with a school since they left between age 15 and 18 and think they know how to fix the system. Welfare is also grimly depressing. I was naive in 2010 when I believed the scrounger could be smashed, but I've come to terms with the idea of the 'scrounger' largely being overblown and a scapegoating device to shield whoever is in government from any real criticism. Focus on Jobseeker's Allowance is a complete waste of public resources as it is other benefits that siphon money from the state. JSA is just a red herring really. They need to tackle Working Tax Credits and the like, which is basically the government admitting businesses are not paying their workers enough. And of course non means-tested benefits for pensioners, but no government is going to touch that. I also find it difficult to believe that they are the party of the working man (and before you idiot partisans jump in, I don't believe Labour is either) when they sell **** off to their mates in backroom deals, dressed up with the convenient rhetoric of consumer choice and freeing the masses.

Foreign policy/defence has been good, as is trying to mix Britain's economy further towards manufacturing and the like. Although part of me thinks those areas would be the same no matter what party was in power.

The Tories have many excellent ideas, it's just a shame they **** them up at every possible opportunity while shouting 'WELL IT WAS ALL LABOUR'S FAULT THEY DID IT WRONG NOT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE'. If a business hired a new employee, and they then worked there for years, ****ing up every task given to them whilst blaming their predecessor for all their problems, they'd be sacked. Yet our government seems to be getting away with it as far as popular opinion is concerned. I guess we have the tides of history to thank for that.
Interesting. I don't like some of the small things Gove has done such as the abolition of modular examinations and somewhat the reduction of coursework (though GCSE coursework is far too easy) however on the big things like the English Bac and free schools i do like the idea a lot (though i share some of the concerns Cleggers raised). Agree regarding the welfare department.

Hard to tell regarding manufacturing. I do think that this government has been more pro-trade (though whether business really takes such a signal from government is hard to tell) and they have certainly being all for business loans and innovation (Willets and Cable doing good work here) however it's hard to tell whether that's primarily the coalitions influence or whether a true Tory government would take a more free market line.

Aye, implementation has been a failing (though thats true of any government i suppose).
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#55
Report 5 years ago
#55
(Original post by Quady)
The 50% rate kicked in April '10. So what do you mean the Tories have risen top end tax to 45%?

Yeah, Cameron has tried to keep quiet what hes done to the higher rate threshold...
It's widely acknowledged that Labour raised that tax rate from the 40% that it had been under their tenure to 50% as by that time they knew they were going to loose. It's a nice little political trap they set. Keep it at 40% for ages, raise it to 50% towards the end klnowing that whoever takes over has to lower it and then claim that they've done it to look after rich supporters.

Like it or not, top end earners have been paying more in tax under the coalition than they did under Labour.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 5 years ago
#56
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
It's widely acknowledged that Labour raised that tax rate from the 40% that it had been under their tenure to 50% as by that time they knew they were going to loose. It's a nice little political trap they set. Keep it at 40% for ages, raise it to 50% towards the end klnowing that whoever takes over has to lower it and then claim that they've done it to look after rich supporters.

Like it or not, top end earners have been paying more in tax under the coalition than they did under Labour.
Well they announced it 13 months ahead of the election and less than 6 months after taking a stake in RBS/HBOS. I doubt they thought they were going to lose in April '09, and as it went, it was pretty close. It was a political trap afterwards, but I don't think it was the intent.

I don't dispute that, the changes to the higher rate have been quite shocking.
0
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#57
Report 5 years ago
#57
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I doubt they'll be cutting taxes to the wealthier. If you actually look at what this government has done whilst in power, they've actually done what labour claims they will do. Under labour, top end tax rate was 40%, and its now 45%. So labour supporters keep banging on that the Tories give the rich tax cuts. They've actually increased taxation for the rich.

The present government has increased tax breaks for the poor. So in the tipsy turvey world the coalition have made the poorer in society better off and made up the shortfall by taxing the rich. We also have a conservative PM who is leading the charge with G8 to try and close tax avoidance loopholes down.
The vast majority of tax avoidance loopholes hasn't been shut and most likely will never be shut. The PM does indeed lobby other G8 countries to try but most don't pay much heed to him as most don't want to erode their own country's sovereignty over this. Instead there are more emphasis towards brokering individual deals with so called tax-havens and so far only Switzerland has signed up to it with a remittance charge framework in exchange to maintaining their banking secrecy that too didn't quite net in as much as originally hoped for as most either moved their money elsewhere or found ways to go under-radar. I don't blame them for doing it.

There was a 50p tax, which Liebour introduced in their final days in office though it should be noted towards their last days they were fairly confident in remaining in office. It became a major hot-potato as many within the Conservative backbench wanted this to be abolished but the Lib-Dems were against such moves. This was an extremely stupid move by Labour as it broke that psychological barrier that made lots of people re-evaluate their tax arrangements, me included as it finally made economic sense to make use of accountants that could find loopholes, it drove many people with wages above £180k per annum to look into incorporating which they did and many did it offshore where it was feasible, many of my colleagues did so and plenty opted to start a company in Singapore and at the same time register themselves as non-resident in UK. Many simply started this process as with the EU crisis and the UK deficit most thought it would be a matter of time before the threshold for the 50p would start at £120k per year.

45p will not be going away, will never happen in this Parliament and unlikely with the next either. In any case this government has stopped going after the wealthier as they did when they first came into power as it was simply sending the signals to foreign investors that UK is closed for business and that the wealthier were deserting it in favour of lower taxed places.

(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
So basically what you are saying is you like the Coalition government's work on
- reducing red tape
- SME policy
- SME access to government contracts
- flexible labour market

which is all BIS policy

and you are extremely disappointed and unhappy with Vince Cable

I suppose maybe all these things you have done were down to BIS civil servants IN SPITE of the government policy and Secretary of State.
That idiot is the one that comes up with the vast majority of the anti-wealthy/rich statements and policies. I've no reason to like him even if his department is doing a good job otherwise.

(Original post by KoalaElf)
Maybe if people were paid enough to afford a basic standard of living (a situation massively exacerbated by property bubbles supported by policies that encourage endless property 'investing' that you are also profiting from) then they would find it worthwhile to work. Even Henry Ford understood that you have to ensure your workers can afford your product, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. To think otherwise is very short-termist and demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for your fellow human.

Sums things up really. I actually thought your callous, self-serving, shallow viewpoint was a tongue in cheek satirical post, designed to subtly illustrate the foolish and cruel nature of policies that favour those who wish to 'farm' people like cattle, but then I read your follow up post and realised you are completely serious.

I am sad to think about what might have happened to you to make you so lacking in empathy and unable to differentiate between what serves your personally and what is good for a country, the world or people in general.
No one owes me a living. No one owes you a living either and neither does anyone owe anyone a standard of living deemed comfortable. I have a very simple philosophy in life, if I need something, work for it, if I want something work harder for it.

The vast majority of homes won't be built if there wasn't investment potential in them, you'll never get a mortgage on one if it wasn't an appreciating asset and no one will build homes if there was no money to be made from it.

Emotions don't belong in business, TMV and Payback Period does, short term as it may be I rather get my money back first and then profits as returns on my investment as there'd be no reason otherwise for me to invest in anything or anyone.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#58
For me the biggest let down with the tories is Cameron's complete U turn on green policy, and just proves labour right about one thing after all. I'm not an expert on education but the free school scheme looks to be a shambles. I have no problem with cuts to the military but I do have a problem with cuts whilst maintaining a neo-con stance towards int Rel IE Syria.

This governments obsession with privatisation being the only way has been a massive failure in my eyes. Atos and G4S have all failed spectacularly, the only rail company making profit in Britain is state owned (Which they'll still be selling) , as always there is widespread condemnation for the NHS which in a spectacular mess due to, i'm fairly certain, deliberate attempts by both Labour and Conservatives to make it fail so it is no longer their burden.

In fact other than job creation and arguably the economy the only thing that Conservatives are good at is being better than Labour, which isn't saying much...
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#59
Report 5 years ago
#59
(Original post by Davij038)
the only rail company making profit in Britain is state owned (Which they'll still be selling)
Scotrail and Virgin don't? Thats a suprise
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#60
(Original post by Quady)
Scotrail and Virgin don't? Thats a suprise
Havent heard of scotrail but as for virgin: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...n-rail-profits
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (104)
19.05%
The paper was reasonable (274)
50.18%
Not feeling great about that exam... (109)
19.96%
It was TERRIBLE (59)
10.81%

Watched Threads

View All