Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philosopher-of-sorts)
    "We must not blame the electorate for ending up with a government we don't like, we should blame ourselves.

    We have to understand why people felt they couldn't support us.

    We have to show we understand the problems people face today.

    This will require strong leadership. It won't always be easy. You might not always like what I have to say.

    ...

    The hard truth for all of us in this hall is that a party that started out taking on old thinking became the prisoner of its own certainties.

    The world was changing all around us - from global finance to immigration to terrorism - New Labour, a political force founded on its ability to adapt and change lost its ability to do so.

    The reason was that we too often bought old, established ways of thinking and over time we just looked more and more like a new establishment.

    Let me say to the country:

    You saw the worst financial crisis in a generation, and I understand your anger that Labour hadn't changed the old ways in the City of deregulation.

    You wanted your concerns about the impact of immigration on communities to be heard, and I understand your frustration that we didn't seem to be on your side.

    And when you wanted to make it possible for your kids to get on in life, I understand why you felt that we were stuck in old thinking about higher and higher levels of personal debt, including tuition fees.

    You saw jobs disappear and economic security undermined, I understand your anger at a Labour government that claimed it could end boom and bust.

    And I understand also that the promise of new politics of 1997 came to look incredibly hollow after the scandal of MPs' expenses. And we came to look like a new establishment in the company we kept, the style of our politics and our remoteness from people.

    I stand before you, clear in my task: to once again make Labour a force that takes on established thinking, doesn't succumb to it, speaks for the majority and shapes the centre ground of politics.

    ...

    Let me say, I believe strongly that we need to reduce the deficit.

    There will be cuts, and there would have been if we had been in government.

    Some of them will be painful, and would have been if we were in government.

    I won't oppose every cut the coalition proposes.

    There will be some things the coalition does that we won't like as a party but we will have to support.

    And come the next election there will be some things they have done that I'll want to reverse but will not be able to.

    I say this because the fiscal credibility we earned before 1997 was hard won and we must win it back by the time of the next general election.

    I am serious about reducing our deficit.



    Inward looking, traditional nature? For a speech by a new Opposition leader, this is possibly one of the least oppositional I have yet heard. Find one of Cameron's which was less, or one of Clegg's if you will. I think you are entirely premature in making such a judgement.
    I concede that it is a slightly premature judgement, but without Tony Blair as the leader of their party, the Labour conference will always be self-serving, self-righteous and to a certain degree inward looking.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-former-index/legal-and-constitutional/lip-reading-reveals-david-miliband-bitterness-$21384300.htm

    Very interesting article..

    "The defeated leadership contender refused to applaud his brother Ed Miliband as Labour's new leader condemned the party's policy on the 2003 invasion.

    "I do believe that we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war and we need to be honest about that," Ed Miliband told the Labour party conference, to applause.

    Footage from ITV News showed David Miliband turning to the party's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, and confronting her about her support for the U-turn.

    "Why are you clapping? You voted for it," David Miliband is seen to ask Ms Harman.

    She replies: "I'm clapping because he's leader and I'm supporting him."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    What we did to the country?

    So that would be the introduction of the minimum wage, the introduction of civil partnerships, the saving of the NHS from Tory oblivion, the building and improving of thousands of schools - improving education to a greater extent than ever seen in recent times, the ending of homophobic Tory legislation, greater equality rights for minority groups and all the other terrible things we did? Ha!

    Our support comes from the moral people of this country. It's funny that pretty much all of my university lecturers and peers support Labour, whereas I don't know of any who are Tories. Labour is the party of the country's intelligentsia and good natured....and don't you forget it.
    Why were Labours able do this when they gained control? Yes, maybe, the Labours improved school building but changed exams to make them easier in the opinion of some. This was partly because Blair wanted 50% of go university. There were at least two reasons why that was not a good policy one being there was no thought to fact that this might overburden some University campuses due to not being able expand and also because it still has not happened it like 48% or something.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    Not unless labour's persistent rigging of constituency boundaries is reversed.

    Thankfully it probably will be.
    And you have proof of that I assume? Or are you just going for cheap shots?

    This is one thing that really annoys me. The consistuency boundaries are looked in to and adjusted by the independent Boundary Comission for am start.

    Plus if you actually look at the evidence you will see that many redrawn boundaries actually hurt Labour more than any other party. At the last election you'll see the reduction of seats saw more Labour seats lots than for any other party. Similarly, the redrawing of the Scottish boundaries (at the 2001 election I think) hit Labour way more than any other party.

    If you want to throw accusations around please make sure you've looked at all the facts of who actualy benefited, or rather was negatively affected by the said boundary reviews you refer to.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Ewan)
    Joe Public lives in a bubble, that's one of the problems with our society. They're quite happy with the government (labour) to plough us into debt, they just don't want to deal with the consequences.
    There's nothing especially bad about labour's record on public debt over their three terms in office - all the longstanding industrial capitalist economies operate with substantive public debt so arguments about 'debt' are mostly a red-herring. The deficit (something different) has jumped up but this relates to the global financial meltdown which none of the major economies were able to shield themselves from, especially where their wealth was being generated substantially through the financial sector (as it is in places like the US and the UK).

    Going back to debt though - it wasn't until the late 1970s and 1980s that, in order to try and solve a global wage-stagnation crisis in the capitalist system, there emerged an ideological movement to protect that system, a movement we now call 'neo-liberalism' and which Ronald Reagan and Maragaret Thatcher as strongly associated associated with. It was neo-liberal policies of financial deregulation which encouraged easier access to credit, even, eventually, among the poorest and most vulnerable. We were all being encourgaed to use credit to buy the things capitalism wasn't giving enough wages to get our hands on and which it needed us to get our hands on to perpetuate the cycle of production-consumption. The result? Widespread private debt and increased public debt. I'd agree that neither labour nor other left-leaning governments in capitalist societies have generally addressed the deregulated markets, let alone the problem of surplus capital absorbtion (the bigger problem long-term) but the credit-crunch, and subsequent emergence of high deficits around the globe, have their root in capitalism and the politics which have tried to save capitalism, and it's a problem that will keep happening.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by usa1981)
    Why were Labours able do this when they gained control? Yes, maybe, the Labours improved school building but changed exams to make them easier in the opinion of some. This was partly because Blair wanted 50% of go university. There were at least two reasons why that was not a good policy one being there was no thought to fact that this might overburden some University campuses due to not being able expand and also because it still has not happened it like 48% or something.
    Before you start criticsing the last Government over making exams easier you should look at other ideas too. This article on the BBC makes interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11342847

    It suggests an alternative reason why some might consider exams getting easier, that the comptition between exam boards is making them set easier exams to sell them to schools so the schools look better. This, along with constant changes to the exam systems and syllabuses which makes fair comparison over different years near impossible can show a very different set of reasons why you can consider exams as being easier.

    Plus you have to remember that there were Government plans for primary school education which were deemed to have been a success and improved standards there, which in turn will have been filtering through to higher levels.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RK)
    Before you start criticsing the last Government over making exams easier you should look at other ideas too. This article on the BBC makes interesting reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11342847

    It suggests an alternative reason why some might consider exams getting easier, that the comptition between exam boards is making them set easier exams to sell them to schools so the schools look better. This, along with constant changes to the exam systems and syllabuses which makes fair comparison over different years near impossible can show a very different set of reasons why you can consider exams as being easier.

    Plus you have to remember that there were Government plans for primary school education which were deemed to have been a success and improved standards there, which in turn will have been filtering through to higher levels.
    Is it not the governments job to regulate the exam boards?
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Is it not the governments job to regulate the exam boards?
    I don't know. But if I were in charge of that, I'm scrap exam boards and just have one so that everyone sat the same each year so you could have a fair comparison of different pupils and also to ensure that there is no chance they can even consider to try and out do each other by setting easier exams in order to encoruage schools to use them. Whether they do this or not, we should aim to remove any chance of it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RK)
    I don't know. But if I were in charge of that, I'm scrap exam boards and just have one so that everyone sat the same each year so you could have a fair comparison of different pupils and also to ensure that there is no chance they can even consider to try and out do each other by setting easier exams in order to encoruage schools to use them. Whether they do this or not, we should aim to remove any chance of it.
    I saw the article you posted awhile ago and I must agree if you have exam boards competing you really are asking for problems.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I don't believe this either. You live in a complete bubble if you think that nearly every Labour voter is a money grabber and will be in for a culture shock when you get to uni, just as those people who think all Conservative voters are selfish rich fox-hunters are in for a shock.
    Please note 'deluded socialists'.

    You may of course not be a money grabber, and simply an idealist. But you're all in the same boat.



    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Such as the last government that received the proceeds of North Sea Oil, billions from selling off British Gas, British Telecom, British Rail and Housing Stock, and yet still failed to reduce the national debt and left us with enormous social problems and dire public services to boot?

    Or the Conservative government before that which shot debt upwards after a period of declining debt that had lasted since the 60s and bequeathed the incoming Labour government with a three-day working week?

    Pls don't try to re-write History to fit your understanding of recent events.
    Ha! Me, re-writing history?

    Shall we talk about the Labour government de-valuing our currency in the 60's from which it has never recovered?

    Or How about the spiraling inflation that Labout couldn't control in the 70's, that led to Thatcher coming into power?

    Or the multitude of other things the Labour government has done that were massive failures. The Conservatives always take over from Labour in times of financial crisis. And more often than not, that crisis is no where near as dire once the COnservative government is done.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RK)
    Plus you have to remember that there were Government plans for primary school education which were deemed to have been a success and improved standards there, which in turn will have been filtering through to higher levels.
    The Labours were able to do this partly due to National Curriculum which covered Reception to year 11 which was enacted by the Conservatives. This does not mean that the Labour's improvements were not successful but without the groundwork that the Conservatives had laid.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by usa1981)
    The Labours were able to do this partly due to National Curriculum which covered Reception to year 11 which was enacted by the Conservatives. This does not mean that the Labour's improvements were not successful but without the groundwork that the Conservatives had laid.
    It's not just what is taught though, but how it's taught. The Primary National Strategy which lead on from the Numeracy and Literacy strategies has been great at improve how people in primary schools are taught and is responsible for improving standards.

    So whilst the NC is good, that really only was the start of things and it's what's been done since then that's pushing things forward. We just need to ensure that the good work continues and is evaluated and reviewed so more improvements can happen. I do worry that budget cuts will result in less review and less research in devising improved plans for the delivery of education, thus seeing methods stagnate and increases in pupil achivements stop. But we will have to see...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I think the way Labour have bounced back so quickly shows how much Gordon Brown was disliked. When I spoke to my friends who I thought would naturally vote Labour (or Lib Dem) the overwhelming reason for not voting Labour was that they did not like Gordon Brown. Society today and young people in particular is all for style over substance.

    It's not even about the coalitions cuts because the public haven't felt it yet, but as we all know they soon will and Labour support will increase further. Should the economy stall Tory support will plummet and Ed Miliband will be the next PM... the government are taking a dangerous, unnecessary, ideological-driven risk.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Please note 'deluded socialists'.

    You may of course not be a money grabber, and simply an idealist. But you're all in the same boat.
    Lol.

    Ha! Me, re-writing history?

    Shall we talk about the Labour government de-valuing our currency in the 60's from which it has never recovered?

    Or How about the spiraling inflation that Labout couldn't control in the 70's, that led to Thatcher coming into power?

    Or the multitude of other things the Labour government has done that were massive failures. The Conservatives always take over from Labour in times of financial crisis. And more often than not, that crisis is no where near as dire once the COnservative government is done.
    You are cherry-picking. You mention the 64 valuation and use that as an example of Labour irresponsibility. But the 1964 Labour government inherited an enormous trade deficit from the outgoing Conservative administration - devaluation was an economic inevitability. I'm not sure allowing supply/demand to dictate price levels rather than artifically inflating them, spelling disaster for domestic industry and trade deficits in the process, is supposed to show economic irresponsibility. Free market Conservatives are the first to make this argument. Not to mention you've completely ignored the more serious Conservative devaluation of Black Wednesday.

    Regarding inflation in the 70s, again you've only given half the story. The inflation started and was in no small part caused by the complete failure of the Heath administration to get a grip on anything and a failed attempt to impose wage/price controls.

    Quite frankly, any analysis that seeks to say Labour or the Tories are responsible/irresponsible is doomed to failure. Both have made good and bad decisions, both have played games with debt and both have played games with inflation and trade. This is because the parties have always adopted relatively similar economic policies, at least after changes. The Conservative governments following Attlee adopted a relatively similar approach, and the Labour government after Thatcher adopted a similar economic approach - even Thatcher balked at rail privatisation and at 40% tax!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Lol.


    You are cherry-picking. You mention the 64 valuation and use that as an example of Labour irresponsibility. But the 1964 Labour government inherited an enormous trade deficit from the outgoing Conservative administration - devaluation was an economic inevitability. I'm not sure allowing supply/demand to dictate price levels rather than artifically inflating them, spelling disaster for domestic industry and trade deficits in the process, is supposed to show economic irresponsibility. Free market Conservatives are the first to make this argument. Not to mention you've completely ignored the more serious Conservative devaluation of Black Wednesday.

    Regarding inflation in the 70s, again you've only given half the story. The inflation started and was in no small part caused by the complete failure of the Heath administration to get a grip on anything and a failed attempt to impose wage/price controls.

    Quite frankly, any analysis that seeks to say Labour or the Tories are responsible/irresponsible is doomed to failure. Both have made good and bad decisions, both have played games with debt and both have played games with inflation and trade. This is because the parties have always adopted relatively similar economic policies, at least after changes. The Conservative governments following Attlee adopted a relatively similar approach, and the Labour government after Thatcher adopted a similar economic approach - even Thatcher balked at rail privatisation and at 40% tax!
    Fair enough, I'll concede that Conservatives have not always been any better than Labour in the Economics department.

    I bow to your superior knowledge.

    That said, the point was only made in response to people shouting about the draconian Tory's and their damned cuts :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philosopher-of-sorts)
    *citation needed

    Honestly used to agree with this sentiment but actually by most of the measures you've stated, neo-liberal and free-market policies have been less successful than active industrial policy, market interventionism, and targetted welfare spending (a strong safety net encourages risk taking--i.e. German style).
    That’s not quite true. Give me 1 year when, adjusted for inflation, German growth was above 2% between 1991-2006. It doesn’t exist. Indeed, look at the figures for 2001-2004 – a period when everyone else was booming and Germany couldn’t even manage 1% real growth.
    In 2005, Merkel was elected on the basis of cutting taxes and employment laws, hence why Germany started to do well in 2007-08, and has done well recently – by starting to adopt some of those ideas. I invested there back in 08 as I saw some great opportunities and believed Germany would be far better placed than other European countries to weather the storm. The success of the CDU in elections since then has re-assured me Germany is currently the best place to do business in W. Europe, a title that for a long time was held by the UK.

    A strong safety net doesn’t encourage risk-taking, and I’ve seen very little evidence for that, but volumes of stuff to the contrary (not to mention my own personal experience, that of having met many people from around the world etc). High taxes and a ridiculously large safety net do not motivate people – after all, if the benefits of working much, much harder are actually quite small, why bother? Very few people would work 10 times harder for only a 10% improvement in wages or whatever it is they are seeking.

    How can you say it encourages risk taking when Germany has one of the lowest entrepreneurial start ups of any major economy!?!??? France and Italy, again countries off to the left, also have very low rates of new businesses starting up, incredibly low growth and high unemployment (particularly among young people).

    Long term, countries like the US and UK have done and will continue to do, much better than Germany.

    I think it’s a great country; I have always bought German cars (I love BMW, Merc. Etc) – and I have some great German friends (who, by the way, all want to work in London because they believe our economy is much better, although they are proud of German manufacturing and engineering prowess), but I’m afraid just because of 1 year when Germany does well (as a consequence of free market policies anyway!!!) doesn’t make it an example to follow, especially when it has done so poorly for years and years preceding it.

    But that’s how desperate the left is...left wing lecturers/teachers (most, by definition are left wing-they depend on it...) will teach students stuff like this and give them a false impression, and those without the opportunities to read, travel and see for themselves the figures, understand the politics etc, will be brought into the lunacy...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Lol.


    You are cherry-picking. You mention the 64 valuation and use that as an example of Labour irresponsibility. But the 1964 Labour government inherited an enormous trade deficit from the outgoing Conservative administration - devaluation was an economic inevitability. I'm not sure allowing supply/demand to dictate price levels rather than artifically inflating them, spelling disaster for domestic industry and trade deficits in the process, is supposed to show economic irresponsibility. Free market Conservatives are the first to make this argument. Not to mention you've completely ignored the more serious Conservative devaluation of Black Wednesday.

    Regarding inflation in the 70s, again you've only given half the story. The inflation started and was in no small part caused by the complete failure of the Heath administration to get a grip on anything and a failed attempt to impose wage/price controls.

    Quite frankly, any analysis that seeks to say Labour or the Tories are responsible/irresponsible is doomed to failure. Both have made good and bad decisions, both have played games with debt and both have played games with inflation and trade. This is because the parties have always adopted relatively similar economic policies, at least after changes. The Conservative governments following Attlee adopted a relatively similar approach, and the Labour government after Thatcher adopted a similar economic approach - even Thatcher balked at rail privatisation and at 40% tax!
    Yes, Conservative and Labour policies 1945-Thatcher were very similar...and both were, in some area's, a disaster for Britain.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...abour-icm-poll

    It's now a 2 percent lead. The Tories are being humiliated and the public are making a clear statement - "We want an election". We all know that Cameron has no mandate as his party FAILED to take half of the seats in the Commons, so for me the right thing to do is to call an election within 12 months. Labour are now the country's most popular party and the Tories are running scared, if they think they can ignore it by making the odd unfounded snipe against our leader or by lying to the public about the cause of the national debt/deficit, then they can think again. It's downhill from here, Cameron. Once the cuts start to kick in, Labour's lead will only extend.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How have people forgotten already just how bad Labour were? They were quite easily the worst Government we've ever had.

    Christ this country frightens me.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...abour-icm-poll

    It's now a 2 percent lead. The Tories are being humiliated and the public are making a clear statement - "We want an election". We all know that Cameron has no mandate as his party FAILED to take half of the seats in the Commons, so for me the right thing to do is to call an election within 12 months. Labour are now the country's most popular party and the Tories are running scared, if they think they can ignore it by making the odd unfounded snipe against our leader or by lying to the public about the cause of the national debt/deficit, then they can think again. It's downhill from here, Cameron. Once the cuts start to kick in, Labour's lead will only extend.
    Oh shut up... polls change, that is what happens. We will have the Conservative Conference soon, perhaps they will be in the lead again.

    Just because the polls change doesn't mean the public want an election... if so, under Brown the public wanted a ******* execution.

    I doubt Labour is the most popular party - I demand to see evidence of this? And don't show me **** volatile polls as evidence, because they are not.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.