Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMeister)
    They're increasing tuition fees, paving the way for the future Conservative or Lib Dem governments to continue that, child poverty is at a higher rate now than at any time since pre-1945 Britain, children are now more likely to be placed into social care programmes, obesity has grown out of control, bureaucratic protocols in the name of "equality" prevent freedom of speech and divide children yet further and divorce rates are now higher than pre-1997, so what is it that they have done so well for the youth's population?
    Personally, I agree with the increased tuition fees, provided the loans remain in their current form, and I'm involved in social work schemes set up by the Labour government that do A LOT for underprivileged children, and that would be under threat if the Conservatives came into power.
    I also fail to see how growing divorce rates are automatically assumed to be negative - I'd much rather people felt able to divorce if a relationship wasn't working out than stayed in it 'for the kids'. That does more harm than good.
    A lot of the problems you seem to have are the fault of individuals, not the government - Gordon Brown isn't force-feeding children. :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Installation)
    If you vote Conservative as an 18-20 year old, you sir, have some issues
    Do I? How nice of you to say so.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    1997 was 5 years after a large recession, 2008 was preceded by a prolonged boom fuelled by loose money worldwide (nothing to do with Labour). Besides which, the failings of a previous government wouldn't excuse this one anyway.
    Reducing the public debt by 6% of GDP after 11 years of economic growth (bar a small blip circa 2001) is hardly an impressive feat.
    Agreed. Brown shouldn't have gone on a spending binge in 2005. However, the "Brown spent all the money in the boom so he had nothing to spend in the recession" thesis doesn't work either.

    The growth figure is ridiculously optimistic - E&Y predict growth of 1% for 2010 which would be below Europe and the US, so I wouldn't go blowing that trumpet too loudly.
    If I'm thinking of the same prediction as you, its quite out-of-date now. The city has recovered much faster than people thought it would - take-overs, bond issues, floations and the like have recovered much faster than anyone predicted. The markets are very much expecting there to be significant growth over the next few quarters rather than a prolonged recession.

    Unemployment may be "only" 7.9% but the inactivity rate is at a record high, and the employment figures are somewhat misleading because they don't reflect the numbers being pushed from full time to part time work.
    The inactivity rate was actually higher in 1983 - coinciding with unemployment of 11.9%. You can thank Maggie's policy of fiscal tightening during a recession for that. Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=12.

    You've got to remember that changes in the activity rate have been driven by more people entering education and by an aging population. The ONS statistics above state that the number of economically active people fell by 79,000 over the last quarter; but this was due to an increase in the number of students of 81,000. Furthermore, these changes are pretty trivial when compared to a 4% difference in unemployment.

    You are right about full-time vs. part-time work, but its far better for everyone that people get pushed onto part-time work than get made unemployed. This is a sign of a flexible labour market.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matt_1892)
    Because David Cameron is a smug, inept tosser.
    As opposed to Gordon Brown who is a boring, inept tosser? (Who picks his nose on public television - youtube it!)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    You have to remember that in 2009 Labour had to bail out the banks. When we have such a large financial services sector, that's always going to be expensive - but the consequences of letting RBS, Bradford & Bingley, Halifax et al collapse would have been far worse.

    Its nonsense that our national debt is far worse than any other developed country, particularly as Japan has a public debt edging on 200% of GDP and as the U.S. is beginning to dwarf out debt with a public debt of $12trillion predicted to rise to 149% of U.S. GDP by 2014. You haven't given a link so I can't argue against your stats, but as you cited the Economist here is a link to the Economist's own comparison tool: http://buttonwood.economist.com/content/gdc. A brief comparison with other developed countries seems to reveal that the U.K. debt is very much par for the course, and in fact remains below that of many other developed countries.

    Unfortunately I can't provide a link to a magazine, I simply interpreted the UK as having the lowest figure for whatever GDP-thing it was to be bad.

    But then even if Labour had been fantastic at boosting the economy, there's still all the stuff like the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, selling all the gold cheap, the police state, health and safety culture and just general sleaze like Mandelson returning (again) that would be enough to completely rule out me voting for them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why vote Labour you ask?

    Here is why:

    1. Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s
    2. Low mortgage rates
    3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage and raised it to £5.35
    4. Record police numbers in England, Scotland and Wales
    5. Cut overall crime by 35 per cent
    6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools
    7. Best-ever primary school results
    8. Funding for every pupil in England to double by 2008
    9. Employment is at its highest level ever
    10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries
    11. 85,000 more nurses
    12. 32,000 more doctors
    13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards
    14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament
    15. Devolved power to Welsh Assembly
    16. Dads now get paternity leave of 2 weeks for the first time
    17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice
    18. Gift aid was worth £625 million to charities last year
    19. Restored city-wide government to London
    20. Record number of students in higher education
    21. Child benefit up 25 per cent since 1997
    22. Created Sure Start to help children from low income households
    23. Introduced the Disability Rights Commission
    24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & extra £100 for over-80s
    25. On course to exceed Kyoto target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2010
    26. Negotiated the historic Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland
    27. Over 30,000 more teachers in England schools
    28. All workers now have a right to 4 weeks’ paid holiday
    29. A million pensioners lifted out of relative poverty
    30. 800,000 children lifted out of relative poverty
    31. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents
    32. Scrapped Section 28 and introduced Civil Partnerships
    33. Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard
    34. Free school milk for five, six and seven-year-olds in Wales
    35. Banned fox hunting
    36. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since the industrial revolution
    37. Free TV licences for over-75s
    38. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals
    39. Waiting times for operations halved
    40. Free local bus travel for over-60s
    41. New Deal - helped over a million people into work
    42. Over 1.5 million child trust funds have been started
    43. Free eye test for over 60s
    44. Five, six and seven year olds in class sizes of 30 or less
    45. Free entry to national museums and galleries
    46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled
    47. Cancer death rates down by 12 per cent, saving 43,000 lives
    48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent
    49. Free nursery places for three and four-year-olds in England, Scotland and Wales
    50. Free fruit for all four to six-year-olds at school
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Agreed. Brown shouldn't have gone on a spending binge in 2005. However, the "Brown spent all the money in the boom so he had nothing to spend in the recession" thesis doesn't work either.


    If I'm thinking of the same prediction as you, its quite out-of-date now. The city has recovered much faster than people thought it would - take-overs, bond issues, floations and the like have recovered much faster than anyone predicted. The markets are very much expecting there to be significant growth over the next few quarters rather than a prolonged recession.


    The inactivity rate was actually higher in 1983 - coinciding with unemployment of 11.9%. You can thank Maggie's policy of fiscal tightening during a recession for that. Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=12.

    You've got to remember that changes in the activity rate have been driven by more people entering education and by an aging population. The ONS statistics above state that the number of economically active people fell by 79,000 over the last quarter; but this was due to an increase in the number of students of 81,000. Furthermore, these changes are pretty trivial when compared to a 4% difference in unemployment.

    You are right about full-time vs. part-time work, but its far better for everyone that people get pushed onto part-time work than get made unemployed. This is a sign of a flexible labour market.
    I don't see why that thesis "doesn't work". The massive borrowing suggests validation.

    The report is from January this year, so I don't think it'll be out of date just yet. Even the Treasury is predicting only 1.25% growth this year.

    I'm not defending Thatcher, so I'm not sure how relevant that particular point is. In any case, the difference between then and now, viz inactivity, is pretty small, and is hardly a point in Brown's favour. There was also far greater union presence back in Thatcher's day, preventing the shift to part time work and the like (thanks, demarcation). GB has Thatcher to thank in part for the lower unemployment rate, due to her work in dismantling the unions.

    The shift from full to part time is a sign of flexibility, yes. But it's also a sign that the economy isn't necessarily recovering but that employers are hoarding labour. It's possible (and indeed expected) that unemployment will increase/employment will fall.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by paella)
    Anyone who votes Labour at the next general election is a stupid narrow minded fool with no social, political or moral knowledge who likes a lowest common denominator system of oppression.

    I shudder to think why anyone, especially of a student age, would want to vote for a party that wants everyone to have to carry around biometric I.D. cards, is for random stop searches of any person without reason, and "will go a long way in taking away civil liberties in order to preserve the greatest one: not to be blown up by a bomb :rolleyes: Honestly, if you vote for these guys, you must be missing a few brain cells.
    You sir are an idiot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What makes you think that the situation would be any better under a Conservative government? Or a Liberal Democrat government? etc.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Because whenever the Conservative party get in there is a widening in the rich/poor divide of Britain. As studies have shown (Wilson and Pickett 2009, if anyone wants to look it up) there is a correlation between social problems e.g. Mortality rates, teen pregnancy, obesity, etc. and Inequality. If the conservatives get in inequality will shoot up and so will social problems. Look at the eighties for god sakes.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by RosieLucenstiel)
    What makes you think that the situation would be any better under a Conservative government? Or a Liberal Democrat government? etc.
    This^^ i dont think a single person has actually given me a good reason, all they've seemed to do is **** off Brown.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    That's because the other countries in the G20 have huge manufacturing industries based in their countries. While the UK is a financial service run economy. Where does this go back to? This goes back to when Margaret Thatcher screwed up our manufacturing industry. We should have been reliant on it and it affects us still today.
    Margaret Thatcher simply privatised the industries that were costing the economy billions to keep going, and because they were so unprofitable no one wanted to take them over. Plus the constant strikes by miners promoted by Arthur Scargill meant that the country was constantly in blacking out, so she was forced to privatise them.

    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    are outraged how the system is running at the moment, however what people don't realise is how good they have got it right now.
    LOL
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    That's because the other countries in the G20 have huge manufacturing industries based in their countries. While the UK is a financial service run economy. Where does this go back to? This goes back to when Margaret Thatcher screwed up our manufacturing industry. We should have been reliant on it and it affects us still today.

    People vote Labour since there is no clear better alternative.

    People are outraged how the system is running at the moment, however what people don't realise is how good they have got it right now.
    This.

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Another person who has no idea how the economic **** storm started.

    EDIT: That said I will not be voting Labour because:

    1. Excessive borrowing.

    2. Ridiculous taxation.

    3. Biggest assault on civil liberties in recent memory.

    4. Got approval for war based on heart attack inducing 'intelligence' that has been described by those who used it to gain support for their war as 'a bit of colour'.

    5. Spent over a decade screwing over the middle classes and only when they are in election trouble do they declare themselves as a party for the middle classes. Bull, they will never deliver on that.

    6. Ridiculous claims from Brown of how much they intend to reduce our debt in a few years, without naming anything they are willing to cut. If his claims are possible, then he has been running everything public incredibly innefficiently for years. If they're not, then he is just lying to try and gain support.

    7. Caved to the mob bloodlust for 'bankers' and is now doing everything he can to hurt the one industry that we have. If he keeps waging war on bonuses (which are usually not really bonuses in the financial sector, they are pretty guaranteed and seen as part of the salary) and pushing up income tax, companies will relocate. Financial services can move easier than most industries.

    8. Labour takes so much money from people and then wastes it away. They have been throwing money at education for over a decade, desperate to look proactive, and have just made it worse and worse and made it harder and harder for teachers to do their jobs.

    9. Brown is basically an idiot. He knew the economic crisis was coming, or at least the Bank of England knew and he should have listened. Then he sold our gold just before it hit. Yes, he's the genius economist we've all heard about who forgot that gold prices go UP in troubled times.

    10. Harriet Harman is a massive sexist and loves a bit of positive discrimination.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    You sir are an idiot.
    You got that right, now bugger off you fool.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aliphatic)
    I'm sure anyone can be made to look like an idiot when they're not there to defend themselves.
    No need to state the obvious and the reason why I put that he wasn't there in breackets was to highlight this. But still, at question time, he was completely embarrassed by Brown and his representative who was on the TV trying to argue on his behalf had to idea what to say. Epic fail.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    Another person who has no idea how the economic **** storm started.

    EDIT: That said I will not be voting Labour because:

    1. Excessive borrowing.

    2. Ridiculous taxation.

    3. Biggest assault on civil liberties in recent memory.

    4. Got approval for war based on heart attack inducing 'intelligence' that has been described by those who used it to gain support for their war as 'a bit of colour'.

    5. Spent over a decade screwing over the middle classes and only when they are in election trouble do they declare themselves as a party for the middle classes. Bull, they will never deliver on that.

    6. Ridiculous claims from Brown of how much they intend to reduce our debt in a few years, without naming anything they are willing to cut. If his claims are possible, then he has been running everything public incredibly innefficiently for years. If they're not, then he is just lying to try and gain support.

    7. Caved to the mob bloodlust for 'bankers' and is now doing everything he can to hurt the one industry that we have. If he keeps waging war on bonuses (which are usually not really bonuses in the financial sector, they are pretty guaranteed and seen as part of the salary) and pushing up income tax, companies will relocate. Financial services can move easier than most industries.

    8. Labour takes so much money from people and then wastes it away. They have been throwing money at education for over a decade, desperate to look proactive, and have just made it worse and worse and made it harder and harder for teachers to do their jobs.

    9. Brown is basically an idiot. He knew the economic crisis was coming, or at least the Bank of England knew and he should have listened. Then he sold our gold just before it hit. Yes, he's the genius economist we've all heard about who forgot that gold prices go UP in troubled times.

    10. Harriet Harman is a massive sexist and loves a bit of positive discrimination.
    Brilliant points +rep for you.

    I love the hypocrisy of the Labour government telling us NOT to borrow our way out of debt. Then that is EXACTLY what they've done.

    With regards to taxation, it is incredibly high. For example, the new road tax scheme is highly inefficient. My fathers road tax on his 14 year old 2.0 litre Saab, his road tax increased about £75. The new road tax scheme just makes it more expensive for people to run older cars and trying to get people to buy new cars which people can't afford - even with the scrappage scheme.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 554593)
    Labour cares about its people and took our country out of recession which said above, is not an easy job! David Cameron will ruin our country and destroy the economy.
    Labour did not take this country out of recession; they prolonged it by using fiscal policy instead of a more aggressive monetary policy. What is your explanation for why the UK is the last G20 country in recession?

    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    That's because the other countries in the G20 have huge manufacturing industries based in their countries. While the UK is a financial service run economy.
    Not true. Manufacturing output in the UK is approximately the same as that in France (~0.2% difference as percentage of total value-added in manufacturing by EU-27 members), yet France came out of recession before the UK. Also, Germany is in a worse position than France despite having a higher manufacturing output. Your explanation isn't sufficient.

    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    We should have been reliant on it and it affects us still today.
    Why should we have been reliant on it? I see no justification for this; the UK does not have a comparative advantage in manufacturing.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I've love to see you justify this. Labour's response to the recession has been very effective.
    It has not. The recession could have been dealt with much quicker and more efficiently purely through monetary policy. There is simply no justification for Labour's use of fiscal policy. Using fiscal policy meant the Bank of England had to use more moderate monetary policy, so the recession has been longer than it should have been.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    its pretty damn impressive that the UK economy is predicted by Goldman Sachs to grow by 3.4% next year - 1% more than the US and 1.5% more than Europe.
    As I pointed out in your thread about this, GS's prediction was based on the depreciating pound. The depreciating pound has been caused by monetary policy, not fiscal policy, so I fail to see how you can use this to justify Labour's response to the recession.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    In both the 1980/82 and 91/92 recessions under the Tories, it took 13 quarters for the economy to return to growth.
    I have no idea how you got this. During the 80/82 recession, annualized quarterly GDP fell for 6 quarters from 1980Q2 to 1981Q3 before growing again. Similarly, during the 91/92 recession, annualized GDP fell for 7 quarters from 1990Q4 to 1992Q2 before growing again. I simply cannot understand how you got that claim; I tried looking at GDP growth in other ways (quarter on quarter change, non seasonally adjusted data, etc.), but couldn't find anything close to what you're saying.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Compare employment trends with those in the last two recessions under the Tories. In the last two recessions, unemployment continued to rise for much, much longer than it did in this recession - unemployment peaked in 1984 and 1993 at 11.9% and 10.7% respectively. In this recession, unemployment has peaked at 7.9% and is already dropping - you'd barely know its a lagging indicator.
    Misleading. As I said in your thread about this: Unemployment refers to people not employed but actively looking for work, so a fall does not necessarily mean that they have found work, but that they have actually stopped looking. Clearly, this is even worse than unemployment. Sadly, it appears to be the case: "The number of people neither employed nor looking for work - not included in unemployment figures - was up to 21.2% of the population. That was the highest rate since August 2007". This is definitely an indictment of Labour, not a vindication; we've gone backwards.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    We were the last G20 country in recession, but you can't blame Labour for that. London is the world's pre-eminent financial centre, after all.
    It doesn't matter whether London is the world's pre-eminent financial centre. Financial services are a very small part of the UK economy. It makes up a bigger percentage of India's GDP, for example.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    You think that a global recession fueled by the U.S. government's subsidising of sub-prime and sparked by the irrational actions of private banks is Labour's fault???
    Do you have any evidence that "irrational actions of private bankers" were anything more than a proximate cause of the recession? It's highly simplistic to blame a recession on that. After all, why would banks make these wrong decisions if they're aiming to make a profit? Something must have made apparent risk decrease relative to actual risk, and that is the cause of the recession. I would say that monetary policy was too expansionary (particularly in this country), with nominal GDP growth above trend from the early 2000s until around 2006. As for the "global recession" mantra, note that not every country in the world went into recession (Australia didn't, for example).

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The best government that ever existed in any country ever wouldn't be able to shelter a trading economy from a global recession.
    Of course not, but a sensible government would have minimized the effects of any recession by using monetary policy as effectively as possible. A foolish government would use fiscal policy.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    You have to remember that in 2009 Labour had to bail out the banks.
    Correction: Labour chose to bail out the banks. Nothing significant would have happened if some banks had collapsed; their assets would simply be split among their creditors. The US allowed Lehmann Brothers to collapse, and yet they came out of recession before the UK.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The inactivity rate was actually higher in 1983 - coinciding with unemployment of 11.9%. You can thank Maggie's policy of fiscal tightening during a recession for that.
    Very misleading. As you know, economic inactivity rates are a lagging indicator, like unemployment, and yet you're comparing a figure from a year after a recession to a figure during a recession. This is clearly absurd.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oliver5084)
    In this recent economic downturn Britain has been at the mercy of rich city bankers simply gambling millions of pounds of tax payers money. Yet Britain has also become victim to a severe lack of political leadership; in the form of Gordon Brown.

    The past decade has seen the disintegration of social values, such as the close family, into a society which is fragmented into sub-divisions of class, racial and religious hatred.

    This needs to be solved, and fast, if Britain is going to lead the way among key global powers such as the USA, India and China. We are being held back by the very person that leads our country, and the irony is, we never voted him into power!

    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...5/brownbig.jpg
    LOL! That's a good one!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oliver5084)
    the irony is, we never voted him into power!
    You've got a point about the previous section of your post, but it's not like he came out of thin air. He was our chancellor for many years previous to him becoming prime minister. I think it's important we don't delude ourselves into thinking he was suddenly sprung upon us. He held the second highest political role in Britain for a decade, lets not forget that.

    And for the record, I'm not Labour supportive OR tory supportive.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,232

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.