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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    That is all subjective, and a matter of opinion.
    what isn't
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Whatever he wants to. The choice is really up to the individiual, I can't make that decision for them. If they choose not to, it's their fault. No, she wasn't incompetent, she ran a budget surplus for a lot of her time in power, which was quite an achievement. They're not 'desperate', I have very little pity for those who do not help themselves. There are options out there, if they don't take them, it's their problem. Sorry if I sound somewhat cold-hearted, but that's how it is.



    Some were, but it was cheaper to outsource it. Therefore, that is what happened. You cannot blame Thatcher for the recession, as I said she ran a surplus, as she didn't believe in constant borrowing.
    Britain has outsourced it's future.

    Thatcher hardly ever ran a surplus; in fact, on that score Labour did better.



    And her Tory governments over-looked two localised recessions. Her actions worsened the 2008 global recession, Germany and Australia suffered so much less because they didn't destoroy their manufacturing base in the 1980s - the government didn't seek to completely obliterate it, but helped it to grow and modernise. Thatcher placed her faith in the City of London, which lies today in relative ruin. London is no-longer the financial centre of the world, what is the British economy's purpose, Thatcher created this unsustainable economic system, and her disgraceful economic legacy lives on today in this protracted period of sluggish growth and in the social problems bleighting ex-industrial areas.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don’t blame Thatcher for the decline of British heavy industry in the 80’s and the unemployment that comes with it. The real blame lies with the socialist post-war consensus (Labour & Tory) who had full employment as a top priority at any cost. There quest for full employment led them to prop up industries which then became unproductive with inferior products compared to the cost of the labour, the best example being the appalling quality of British cars. These industries also knew they could strike and bring down the government, so any attempt by the government or the management to change the system ended in abysmal strike action.

    If these industries has been privatised in the 1950’s like in Germany or Japan for example we would have had better quality products that were not being proped up by the tax payer. More importantly the inevitable job losses that come when cheaper labour is available abroad would have been staggered over many years, not in the period of only a few years during the 80’s. When Thatcher eventually had to bite the bullet we paid the price for the mismanagement of the last 40 years, it wasn’t pretty but it had to be done.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    Britain has outsourced it's future.

    Thatcher hardly ever ran a surplus; in fact, on that score Labour did better.



    And her Tory governments over-looked two localised recessions. Her actions worsened the 2008 global recession, Germany and Australia suffered so much less because they didn't destoroy their manufacturing base in the 1980s - the government didn't seek to completely obliterate it, but helped it to grow and modernise. Thatcher placed her faith in the City of London, which lies today in relative ruin. London is no-longer the financial centre of the world, what is the British economy's purpose, Thatcher created this unsustainable economic system, and her disgraceful economic legacy lives on today in this protracted period of sluggish growth and in the social problems bleighting ex-industrial areas.

    Actually, the recession was made several times worse by Labour spending all our money on stupid schemes, such as the Sure Start programme and the Child Trust fund.

    As I've said, the people can retrain. I'm sure if their benefits were cut, they'd manage to find a way to work then... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Actually, the recession was made several times worse by Labour spending all our money on stupid schemes, such as the Sure Start programme and the Child Trust fund.

    As I've said, the people can retrain. I'm sure if their benefits were cut, they'd manage to find a way to work then... :rolleyes:
    What a collection of stupid comments. I can't be bothered to talk with somebody as brain-dead as yourself. I could have a more meangful conversation with my two dead goldfish.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    What a collection of stupid comments. I can't be bothered to talk with somebody as brain-dead as yourself. I could have a more meangful conversation with my two dead goldfish.
    Well you could address my points
    Offline

    11
    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?
    Oh hi maggie, didn't realise you had a TSR account!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Well you could address my points
    Which ones? Redevelopment agencies?

    That’s not true; the Development Corporations set up by the conservative administration were set up to redevelop badly hit areas. The Tyne and Wear Development Corporation for example, set up in 1987 its flagship developments included the regeneration of the East Quayside in Newcastle, Royal Quays in North Tyneside and St Peter's in Sunderland. During its lifetime 10,700,000 square feet (990,000 m2) of non-housing development and 4,550 housing units were built. Around 33,707 new jobs were created and some £1,115m of private finance was leveraged in. Circa 1,287 acres (521 ha) of derelict land was reclaimed and 24 miles (39 km) of new road and footpaths put in place.

    The Nissan car plan in Sunderland was put there specifically to combat unemployment in the area by the Tory government
    Some of the best actions of the previous Conservative government are the redevlopment schemes. However it doesn't replace the fact that for every shiny office block, there are swathes of deprivation - it was also partly due to Thatcher's dislike of working class, industrial communities - if she had felt so strongly about the government subsidising industry - why did she not stop the farming subsidy? The farming industry is mainly Tory and would only result in a political loss for the government, she obviously decided not to treat the farming industry the same as she treated the mining industry.

    Given the emergence of clean coal technology, the crash of the City of London, the effects of unemployed miners, the destruction of communities & small businesses - the creation of a dependency culture in previously proud and largely self-sufficient areas, I would be interested to know the real cost of closing down Britsh industry in the manner Thatcher did.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    What a collection of stupid comments. I can't be bothered to talk with somebody as brain-dead as yourself. I could have a more meangful conversation with my two dead goldfish.
    That isn't stupid at all, it's true. Just becaue you disagree with someone does not mean you have to insult them, how immature.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    Some of the best actions of the previous Conservative government are the redevlopment schemes. However it doesn't replace the fact that for every shiny office block, there are swathes of deprivation - it was also partly due to Thatcher's dislike of working class, industrial communities - if she had felt so strongly about the government subsidising industry - why did she not stop the farming subsidy? The farming industry is mainly Tory and would only result in a political loss for the government, she obviously decided not to treat the farming industry the same as she treated the mining industry.
    Farming subsidy comes from the CAP, she did negotatiate the rebate out of that.


    Given the emergence of clean coal technology, the crash of the City of London, the effects of unemployed miners, the destruction of communities & small businesses - the creation of a dependency culture in previously proud and largely self-sufficient areas, I would be interested to know the real cost of closing down Britsh industry in the manner Thatcher did.
    As I said before, don’t blame Thatcher for the decline of British heavy industry in the 80’s and the unemployment that comes with it. The real blame lies with the socialist post-war consensus (Labour & Tory) who had full employment as a top priority at any cost. There quest for full employment led them to prop up industries which then became unproductive with inferior products compared to the cost of the labour, the best example being the appalling quality of British cars. These industries also knew they could strike and bring down the government, so any attempt by the government or the management to change the system ended in abysmal strike action.

    If these industries has been privatised in the 1950’s like in Germany or Japan for example we would have had better quality products that were not being proped up by the tax payer. More importantly the inevitable job losses that come when cheaper labour is available abroad would have been staggered over many years, not in the period of only a few years during the 80’s. When Thatcher eventually had to bite the bullet we paid the price for the mismanagement of the last 40 years, it wasn’t pretty but it had to be done.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well going by this logic the torys are set to create some more labour voters since their cuts are set to put so much more people into poverty
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    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.
    and whilst the lives of the workshy improved, the country became the most debt-ridden in the G8......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People are far more motivated to vote against a party than for it. People in inner cities and the north hate the conservatives as they blame them for anything bad that has ever happened to them, a bit like if your mum always gave you sweets but your dad said no because in the long run you will become diabetic.


    A new study called 'The Foundation Years' has shown that although Labour redistributed £134 billion during its 13 years social mobility and child poverty are almost identical if not worse than when they started... This is because Labour does not instil the values in citizens that they should work, or that fathers should be there for their children, they merely pander to the widely held entitlement complex the working classes now have. Under Labour we have seen the demise of personal responsibility for a bad life. In the 50s, 60s, 70s, and to a lesser extent the 80s and 90s, it was widely held that if you were fully able and had a bad life it was because you behaved like scum, all such sentiment has now gone in the inner cities and much of the north. The social stigma of not working and/or being a single parent were good for us, and Labour have done away with that. Instead replacing a gap in values - with one half of the country taking responsibility for their actions, and the other half seeing the only way out of their problems as having money poured all over them. 'I live in a horrible neighbourhood' - throw money at it, 'I go to a bad school'- throw money at it, 'I had a baby out of wedlock with someone I clearly knew would never support me' - throw money at it. Social study after social study have shown that no amount of money can take the place of a loving and stable family.

    There is also the fact that of those who do work amongst the working classes, almost the majority work in the public sector doing pointless admin jobs that help no one. In order to keep their cushy jobs Labour and the Unions have made it clear that voting for Labour is mandatory. At the end of the day it's all about personal preservation - those who benefit from personal responsibility for all will always vote Conservative, and those who seek a better easier life on other peoples coat tails will always vote Labour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The councils to be hit hardest by the spending cuts are working class ones in the North. Southern councils are being given spending rises under the Tories. Places like Liverpool, Blackpool and Preston are seeing their spending slashed. Places like London and Cambridge are being given more funding... Essentially the places where Tories live. It sort of defeats the notion we're in this together.

    Add to this the fact the South, particularly London, is given all our taxes anyway and you've got something to be mad about.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meebodied)
    The councils to be hit hardest by the spending cuts are working class ones in the North. Southern councils are being given spending rises under the Tories. Places like Liverpool, Blackpool and Preston are seeing their spending slashed. Places like London and Cambridge are being given more funding... Essentially the places where Tories live. It sort of defeats the notion we're in this together.

    Add to this the fact the South, particularly London, is given all our taxes anyway and you've got something to be mad about.
    Nonsense.

    The places getting the largest cuts are the ones that get the most money at the moment. Therefore they can afford to take a bigger cut than those councils which get less money already. It brings the councils into a more equal position than they currently are.

    Whether or not that is a fair position is up to whether you believe that poorer areas with high levels of deprivation should get more money than areas with high employment rates and fewer deprived people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    no doubt you have grow up being educated with a labour government in place, you notice it when we have more teachers, schools that have better equipment, needs money, but than people just go but our ranking are falling lest do the easy thing blame labour so it hides the fact we have no plan to deal with it, education needs massive reform, its not a over night thing, it takes years for the affects to be shown


    thats down to the doctors not labour


    no it wouldn't, if the money is not pumped in than we have have all these great treatments, again it was never prefect under labour, but a lot better than how the tories used to run it, unless you like waiting 18 months for treatment, or well over 6 hours plus in A&E,


    not to really, so its not pointless its a living wage, unless you support letting people work for 50p a hour


    its permanent for afew people, those at the bottom, who are not termed as skilled workers but have learnt the roll of their job, become unemployed and can't fine work







    you don't go on a waiting list off waiting list, as so as your GP writes a letter for you needed more treatment or to see someone, you will see them in 18 weeks, 2 weeks if its cancer

    hours i have spend having lectures by NHS staff, on policy, treatment, spending time with hospitals as part of the course, this is pretty much drummed into you
    So explain why a person waits for 6 months which is 26 weeks if all patients are seen within 18 weeks. Even when the evidence is put under your nose you still believe what is said in a classroom. Get into the real NHS and see what happens there rather than quoting your lecturers who haven't worked in the NHS for donkeys.

    As for your view on education! You are naive in the extreme if you really believe that educational standards are rising.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    because those "**** holes" are full of benefit claimants, poor people etc. who love labour
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    Her actions worsened the 2008 global recession, Germany and Australia suffered so much less because they didn't destoroy their manufacturing base in the 1980s - the government didn't seek to completely obliterate it, but helped it to grow and modernise.
    What you've said is completely hillarious!

    The fact that people in china can mine coal at about 1/10th the cost had no bearing on the future of the British coal-mining industry?

    Erm, reality check required?

    If all those socialists up north were properly educated they'd have a lot less social problems!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meebodied)
    Add to this the fact the South, particularly London, is given all our taxes anyway and you've got something to be mad about.
    to hear a Scot say that is completely hillarious.....
    Offline

    0
    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?
    hahaha i love how much youre like maggie thatcher, you'll tell it like it is and speak your mind without caring if you get negative rep, infact negative rep from the left was something the iron lady thrived on haha
 
 
 
  • 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.