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

    2
    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.
    That's not difficult to do. Anybody can approve plans for NHS and schools. What's difficult is getting the money to build them. And Labour found a 'solution': borrow!

    The reason other political Parties don't simply 'build' schools is because there isn't the money for it - they don't hate schools; in fact I'm sure they'd build them if they had infinite amounts of money. But they don't.

    Labour didn't quite get to grips with this idea and decided to spend money they didn't have anyway...hundreds of billions of pounds, in fact.

    It's easy for any government to spend; the challenge is in getting the money from somewhere. And I'm afraid that printing money doesn't work, my dear Labour supporter...
    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?
    Because these constituents are jealous buggers and labour are a pathetic party who exploit class envy for votes rather than by their governmental merits
    Offline

    1
    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?
    Old Maggie, you created the **** holes where there weren't any in the first place.
    Offline

    14
    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
    Not sure if the quality of your English is irony, but 13 years and the effects are being shown right there.

    I see people on here railing about how terrible it is that the Conservatives can't find money to spend on derelict schools with holes in the roof. The Conservatives have only just gotten in. Why do we have derelict schools that need massive investment, when over the past 13 years Labour have had ample opportunities to fix them up?

    Hackney - which is one of the biggest ****holes in the UK - spends nearly ten grand per pupil annually - you could get your kid into a decent private school for way less than that.

    Gordon Brown is a good example of someone, from poor beginnings, plucked age eleven and sent to a nice grammar school with all the other hard working, well behaved, kids.

    Saved from years of violent bullying you just know a personality like his would have attracted in spades down at the secondary modern.

    Even in the land of social democracy, Germany, they have a selective education system with no pretence of it being the slightest bit comprehensive.

    Of course, this glaringly obvious, elephant in the room, alternative educational approach was completely out of the question for Labour, as if it didn’t even exist, in their impartial and balanced piece of work.

    It would also provide the sort of social mobility, now missing from our society, that many Labour politicians, like Gordon Brown, were able to take advantage of.

    The status quo left unchallenged is in the end just a form of in house propaganda.

    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.

    Even these derelict schools that Gove now won't spend money on, well excuse me, please explain why have we still got derelict schools after thirteen years of the greatest piss up the wall of money our nation has ever seen?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    Thatcher destroyed parts of Northern England. That ***** is responsible for large parts of the 'social breakdown' and 'welfare culture' that the ***** in the Tory party like to pin on people from the North.

    Go to old mining towns in South Yorkshire, or Nottinghamshire - and ask why they don't support the Conservative party.

    Very true, although I am without a doubt 'middle class' - my mums family are without a doubt not middle class. I have family members who live in areas decimated by things like the pit closures - and the 'we don't give a ****' attitude from Whitehall in the Thatcher years. I would never vote for a party that considers themselves 'Thatcher's children'.
    Well, let's have a look, shall we?

    Regardless, of how well, or otherwise, the Tories did (and clearly they did not win) there can be no doubt that Labour lost, doing as badly as when Michael Foot was defeated.

    Draw a line much south of Manchester and, apart from the usual pockets, Labour has once again become virtually unelectable.

    Labour has to ask itself why and remember that crucially they have to win back the hearts and minds of Middle England to ever dream of power again.

    Bit of personal experience for you - you mention old mining towns in Nottinghamshire - well, there was always Ollerton pit that I once lived quite close to, it was closed because the coal there either ran out or simply wasn't economical to extract. I moved there (thankfully only for a few years) in 1995, a year after it closed and it was a bit of a ****hole then, and since I still have family and friends in the area, I'm back quite often, and it's still pretty much the same ****hole that it was back then. Also Clipstone which has a pit which was closed a year before. It reopened again a year later, but was finally closed in 2003 - ironically by the Labour Party - because it was uneconomical to run.

    Now, Ollerton and Clipstone are in the Sherwood parliamentary constituency that was Labour since 1992, but guess what, perhaps the people living there were tired of Labour doing nothing about their ****hole as they have now voted in a Conservative MP. Perhaps you should be asking why this is?

    Thanks to their economic incompetence, by the time they next achieve power, this country will, just like in the eighties, have radically changed and just like then it will have been all of Labour’s doing because of the mess they left behind.

    If Labour do return it will be to a country where the last vestiges of their precious socialism, notably the NHS and state run education, will be unrecognisable.

    They will no doubt adapt to this in their usual manner by doing sod all about it.

    Oh they will moan about the nasty Tories but in truth, like with union reform and nationalisation, the Tories always end up doing Labour's dirty work for them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To the person who quoted me: YOURE WRONG.

    Liverpool is the most underfunded council in the UK and it's funding is to be reduced even further under Tory plans.

    This isn't a fair redistribution. This is the distribution of wealth away from those who need it to those who are already wealthy. Of course George Osbourne, and his pals, wouldn't care if the north fell off the map. Their priorities lie with wealthy southern boroughs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meebodied)
    To the person who quoted me: YOURE WRONG.

    Liverpool is the most underfunded council in the UK and it's funding is to be reduced even further under Tory plans.

    This isn't a fair redistribution. This is the distribution of wealth away from those who need it to those who are already wealthy. Of course George Osbourne, and his pals, wouldn't care if the north fell off the map. Their priorities lie with wealthy southern boroughs.
    George Osbourne represents a Northern constituency. Argument fail. :doh:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ataloss)
    George Osbourne represents a Northern constituency. Argument fail. :doh:
    Yes, Tatton, the 3rd wealthiest constituency in the UK, hardly representative of your typical Northern constituency is it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meebodied)
    To the person who quoted me: YOURE WRONG.

    Liverpool is the most underfunded council in the UK and it's funding is to be reduced even further under Tory plans.

    This isn't a fair redistribution. This is the distribution of wealth away from those who need it to those who are already wealthy. Of course George Osbourne, and his pals, wouldn't care if the north fell off the map. Their priorities lie with wealthy southern boroughs.
    I quoted you.........

    What kind of scot sits there saying 'london and the south spend our money' ?

    Erm

    1) You dont contribute any of it!
    2) You receive more taxpayer's money per head and England receives the least!
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Ignore her, she's a typical Tory scum so she is bound to make comments like that about bebefit scroungers and uneducated ********s from the North. I find it totally disgraceful, that the poor are poor because they are silly with their money or they should just get on a bike :rolleyes: Some sociological explanations here are needed, oh sorry didnt your goddess Thatcher loathed this subject because it touches controversial topics of society :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meebodied)
    Of course George Osbourne, and his pals, wouldn't care if the north fell off the map. Their priorities lie with wealthy southern boroughs.
    ...in the same way that the North doesn't care if the South has to suffer. Well that was a useful argument...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    selection is bad, your writing a child off at a young age, children do not learn at the same rate, we need to move away from this factory education, selective education system still fails some very bright students
    Er... no no no no no

    Firstly selection exists at 11, 16, 18, 21 its called examination!

    For your pathetic excuse against the 11+ there is also the 13+ for late developers- which covers your point 'children do not learn at the same rate'.

    Did you know Oxbridge used to accept more state pupils when the Grammar schools existed properly?

    I am so fortunate to have grown up in the county with 25% of the UK's grammar schools. Where i live every bright child, regardless of poor or rich gets the education they deserve.

    If you really want to know, the poor bright children usually start to fail at Grammar schools aged 15ish, when their backgrounds start to catch up with them. You can't fix this, its nothing to do with the school- its their single mother family status etc. What a Government can do, is the exact opposite of Labour and stop encouraging single-parent families!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)

    building takes awhile, its not only building is the planning, its the asking of local people, i'll take my old school in order to move everyone to one site they had to remove a road from public use, and off course everyone loves to point to money
    So you are admitting Labour did nothing to sort out this problem then. All of the rest are just excuses. Why would they need to move everyone to a new site? Every school I've seen does building work during the summer holidays.

    Remove a road from public use??? Are you listening to yourself here? That's what Mr Gove should have said. Instead of saying "I'm sorry, but we don't have enough money to fix all these failing schools", he could have just said "I'm sorry, but we would have to remove a road from public use". Yeah. That would have shut the critics up.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    environmental factors affecting a child's development, in the home, on the street or in school, its more about understanding the area than throwing money
    I understand that Hackney is a ****hole. Given the choice, I bet a lot of those parents would rather send their kids private like Dianne Abbot.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    Kirkcaldy High School which brown went to was and its a comprehensive state school, hothousing its looked down on, controversial
    It is now. Brown was educated first at Kirkcaldy West Primary School where he was selected for an experimental fast stream education programme, which took him two years early to Kirkcaldy High School for an academic hothouse education taught in separate classes.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    selection is bad, your writing a child off at a young age, children do not learn at the same rate, we need to move away from this factory education, selective education system still fails some very bright students
    You say children do not learn at the same rate, I think this is an excellent argument for selective education.

    Ability is largely irrelevant in an education system.

    Hard work alone is more than enough to earn a suitable degree for most aptitudes.

    The most important aspect of such a test is that it can serve to separate the well motivated from the time wasters and their persuasive influence.

    Indeed, many of the time wasters could be equally bright, but tough, you've still got to get past the fact that ultimately they're wasters.

    Segregating the kids that do want to learn from the timewasters is a well-proven educational concept.

    Face it, the hard workers will never influence the deadbeats but we all know that’s not the case the other way round.

    Segregation never went away, it’s alive and kicking in the comprehensive system it’s just that nowadays it’s by wealth rather than ability. I saw this first hand in the good school in an affluent area that had everything and well behaved pupils, compared to the out of date craphole in the second where they were still using blackboards - the "inclusive" school that took all the students the two other local schools had excluded. Results a coincidence? I don't think so.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    everyone loves the status quo, everyone loves moaning about education while doing nothing about it, thats all 3 parties, education needs to change
    these a great lecture on youtube about education in the world and why it is failing even the very best students
    Whatever. Truth is, Labour have ****ed it up in the past 13 years. Doing nothing is right.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    yeah lets forget that labour pay down a lot of debt from 1997- 2002, still borrowing levels where lower than the last tory government, oh what happened in 2008 the bail out, which party was against that oh the tories, which party was pushing for less banking regulations not even 6 months before the crash oh wait the tories, easy to play the blame game, but when you look at the facts and figure, apart from 2008, labour record on debt is a lot better than the government before that
    Irrelevant propaganda. My point was valid that Labour had 13 years to fix derelict schools, yet instead of that, you go on about paying down debt, the bail out, banking regulations, blah blah - typical smoke and mirrors. The bail out was less than a third of the money Labour pissed away, anyway.

    How much would we have got it we'd "cashed our gold" now, by the way?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meebodied)
    To the person who quoted me: YOURE WRONG.

    Liverpool is the most underfunded council in the UK and it's funding is to be reduced even further under Tory plans.

    This isn't a fair redistribution. This is the distribution of wealth away from those who need it to those who are already wealthy. Of course George Osbourne, and his pals, wouldn't care if the north fell off the map. Their priorities lie with wealthy southern boroughs.
    A misconception among northern communists.

    So tell me, why has Liverpool jumped from doing so well over the past 13 years to suddenly being the most underfunded council in the UK?

    Of course, for the past 13 years, it couldn't possibly have been the most underfunded council, since it's a Labour area, and Labour have had all the funding decisions over the past 13 years, haven't they?

    A lie - since it HAS been underfunded through 13 years of Labour, and the only reason it is going to remain so is that Labour spent all the money and there is none left to spend on it.

    The fact that it was underfunded under Labour is the Conservative party's fault of course!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagneticMeteor)
    Ignore her, she's a typical Tory scum so she is bound to make comments like that about bebefit scroungers and uneducated ********s from the North. I find it totally disgraceful, that the poor are poor because they are silly with their money or they should just get on a bike :rolleyes: Some sociological explanations here are needed, oh sorry didnt your goddess Thatcher loathed this subject because it touches controversial topics of society :rolleyes:
    Look you lot, Margaret will get her state funeral because all those in the Midlands and the South East, that kept voting her back in, absolutely loved her.

    Those that hate her are just a minority of northern Communists, stuck in the past, the same as all their industries were after Labour had nationalised them all.

    It was all that nationalisation that left them screwed, not Thatcher, she just turned off the gravy train because there was no money left after Old Labour had pissed it all up the wall (sound familiar).

    But make no mistake, those industries were basket cases way beyond repair.

    Example, British Leyland a complete joke and a national embarrassment so bad they can still make jokes about the Marina on Top Gear, and get away with it, to this day.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    what is the point when, points get taken out of use, i used taking a road out of use because that slows up the process

    its not a new site, moving everyone onto one site, in which case you need build more classrooms to bring over the other 2 years, its makes it easier in teaching, so you don't have teachers needing to travel between to site, nor do students, labour did alot just everyone fails to see it, or go exams are getting easier
    Didn't answer my question, more excuses.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    yeah but Dianne Abbot is a racist fool
    Ah yes, why debate when you can just stop anyone in their tracks with an answer like that.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    not the selective education people push for, why do educated based on year, and not ability
    Use English please.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    exams promote that big time, you know you have a exam at the end of the year, you can do sweet FA all year, 4 weeks before the exam work your head off get an A, or the students who works their ass off all year round passing coursework with As, gets to the exam and flops because they can't sit a exam, and they get a C, miss out of uni, it happens far too much
    exams how we sit them now do more motivate, is it fair that a student works hard all year round and flops on the day of a exam, while a time waster can turn up and get an A
    Again.

    Ability is largely irrelevant in an education system.

    Hard work alone is more than enough to earn a suitable degree for most aptitudes.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    far to easy

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
    great video to why education is failing
    No need to watch. I just have to read the quality of English used and match this to the time period you were educated.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    its never too long before the gold gets brought up, damn if you damn if you don't
    All Gordon had to do was look at any sort of graph charting the prices of gold.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    how much money did thacher lost by selling everything off a rock bottom prices
    Not the same thing. Those industries nationalised under Labour, industries run by people who hadn't a clue, all making a loss. The money had run out. She stopped pouring money into a black hole.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    labour wasted more than £850billion up the wall, pointless wars don't count
    Ah yes, money that doesn't count - excellent argument.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    alot of school are not derelict, we do have more teachers now, smaller class size for young ages, look at the first few years under labour education jumped forward alot, once you make a big step the next one is harder
    This last bit does more to promote the quality of an education under Labour than I ever could.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    so if they fail a exam at 11 or 13 they deserve a bad education
    Errrr yes??

    If i have 100,000 kids, only 200 good teachers and 800 bad teachers what on earth is the point of using my 200 good teachers on dumb children??

    Finite resources (good teachers) for infinite wants (pupils) is the definition of economics/reality!

    Who cares if a care who is destined to become a hairdresser gets an E or D grade for GCSE English? She's less important than a future doctor getting a B grade instead of an A grade in GCSE Biology.

    Harsh, but true- everyone has a different value to society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    because that slows up the process
    Which Government introduced excess bureaucracy?
    (in the form of employing their uneducated voters on-a-whim)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Actually, I live in York, and vote Labour, and Labour has done a huge amount for the city in terms of regeneration and infrastructure development.

    I have very little faith in politics (but that's generally because of the structural limitations imposed by the party system, rather than lack of faith in any particular party--I'm a fan of Mayors, because they actually have the chance to really accomplish things), but I can see where it has made an impact.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    different value maybe, but why waste a good teacher on a student whos going get a A anyway than? getting an A in biology doesn't make you a good doctor, the bin men don't need great grades but are pretty important, unless you want rubbish everywhere, or a post man, are they than worth more than a accountant, whos worth more, how about a solider

    again so your fine with writing of young people for failing exams, yet their are people who fail school, than make millions or go back years later or learn a trade or go back to school and learn
    I didnt quite understand your last point.

    My general argument is that we should (rightly) use scarce resouces on the best, because our country's future is going to be shaped and determined more so by the best than by the others.

    Somebody isnt 'written off' for failing the 11+, they still sit GCSEs aged 16 but they arent given as much 'government funding' in the form of teaching as someone who is known to be clever.

    We cannot simply keep saying 'oooo cant condemn that child, they COULD-POSSIBLY-THEORETICALLY do well in the future'. Instead we have to look at the facts and say 'this child is more likely to do well, lets concentrate resources on them.

    With regards to you (i think it was you) reply on my Oxbridge state school admissions comment, its not about Oxbridge (i hope you were just being pedantic) !! Im basically saying state school pupils together, as a whole, did better without comprehensive schools.
 
 
 
  • 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.