Turn on thread page Beta

What makes Labour 'Progressive'? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    1973-75 was a global issue. 1992 was due to the ERM screw up, had Labour won the 1990 election I promise you the fallout from that event would have made them unelectable pretty much permanently. And 80-82 was due to Labour policy towards the end of the 70's.

    Might I also add the late 40's were pretty bad after Labours decision to take a loan from the US on their terms in order to create the Welfare State and transition to Keynesian economics. A decision that wasn't necessary but they still carried out.
    Actually, 80-82 was because of the Monetarist policies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    Actually, 80-82 was because of the Monetarist policies.
    Combination of both, monetarism was a new concept and the economy was being prepared for a shift from Keynesian to Free Market. As such don't expect a smooth transition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    Combination of both, monetarism was a new concept and the economy was being prepared for a shift from Keynesian to Free Market. As such don't expect a smooth transition.
    It couldve also been because Thatcher's policies meant inflation rose, unemployment rose which caused the recession. I honestly think if the Falklands hadn't occured she wouldn't have got the landslide victory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    It couldve also been because Thatcher's policies meant inflation rose, unemployment rose which caused the recession. I honestly think if the Falklands hadn't occured she wouldn't have got the landslide victory.
    No it was a result of Labours spend spend spend more than we earn policy as Jim Callaghan himself admitted a few years earlier when he said....

    "We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leetay)
    No it was a result of Labours spend spend spend more than we earn policy as Jim Callaghan himself admitted a few years earlier when he said....

    "We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."
    So how do you explain the reason he got booted out of power is because he tried freezing people's pay? You could also argue that Heath spent a great deal..

    Labour must've spent a great deal of money to say that they was only in power for five years including Callaghans..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    So how do you explain the reason he got booted out of power is because he tried freezing people's pay? You could also argue that Heath spent a great deal..

    Labour must've spent a great deal of money to say that they was only in power for five years including Callaghans..
    I think the IMF bailout and record high inflation had more to do with it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    So it's fair that in an hours time I would be working for £3 an hour if the retail company I work for says so? :rolleyes:
    Or you could just not apply for the job? If they did suddenly change their mind then that would be a breach of contract.
    There really isn't any evidence to show that people will get paid that much below their market value, unless that really is how much their skill is worth, like people who can't read and write or have a criminal conviction. Like I said, all it does it destroys the few jobs out there that would normally be available for the unskilled, that would give them the opportunity to build up their experience and go on to demand higher paying jobs after. Instead, they've been completely priced out of the jobs market and this law gives them middle finger.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    So how do you explain the reason he got booted out of power is because he tried freezing people's pay? You could also argue that Heath spent a great deal..

    Labour must've spent a great deal of money to say that they was only in power for five years including Callaghans..
    Callaghan spent a lot, as for Heath no argument there his own Chancellor admitted mistakes was made. The problem was that Labour attempted nothing to fix the problems made and exacerbated them. Combined with Thatchers attempt to fix it through very radical means it was inevitable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Er-El)
    Or you could just not apply for the job? If they did suddenly change their mind then that would be a breach of contract.
    There really isn't any evidence to show that people will get paid that much below their market value, unless that really is how much their skill is worth, like people who can't read and write or have a criminal conviction. Like I said, all it does it destroys the few jobs out there that would normally be available for the unskilled, that would give them the opportunity to build up their experience and go on to demand higher paying jobs after. Instead, they've been completely priced out of the jobs market and this law gives them middle finger.
    So turn that around, why should I work for literally nothing? The reason DC voted against it is because 'it hurts buisnesses'. Notice how he never mentioned the people who have to pay the mortgages? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leetay)
    I think the IMF bailout and record high inflation had more to do with it
    If the unions had helped him out a tiny bit (hes a trade unionist himself) then I don't think we would've seen Thatcher's horrid policies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    If the unions had helped him out a tiny bit (hes a trade unionist himself) then I don't think we would've seen Thatcher's horrid policies.
    You mean horrid policies like not paying the pensioners their xmas bonus, scrapping the 10p tax, raiding our pension pot, selling our gold at rock botom prices, letting thousands of prisoners out early and forcing mass immigration into the country?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    So turn that around, why should I work for literally nothing? The reason DC voted against it is because 'it hurts buisnesses'. Notice how he never mentioned the people who have to pay the mortgages? :rolleyes:
    No one's forcing you, that's the difference. Of course spending a few months doing voluntary work for experience isn't ideal, but it can be seen as an investment, and it's a choice that you personally might make, rather than getting any random job for £6/hour which will add nothing to your career. I agree though, businesses should be paying their interns.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Er-El)
    No one's forcing you, that's the difference. Of course spending a few months doing voluntary work for experience isn't ideal, but it can be seen as an investment, and it's a choice that you personally might make, rather than getting any random job for £6/hour which will add nothing to your career. I agree though, businesses should be paying their interns.
    Well how would I afford anything in life if I didn't have a job? Also, I'm 18 years old, the job I currently have will do a lot for my future career. Its learnt me a lot of skills which will benefit my education in the future.

    Isn't it contradictory that we campaign for other countries to stop paying their workers literally NOTHING when there is some people who want to scrap the very thing that provides family with pivotal income?

    I have got the feeling that you have completly different circumstances to me and others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leetay)
    You mean horrid policies like not paying the pensioners their xmas bonus, scrapping the 10p tax, raiding our pension pot, selling our gold at rock botom prices, letting thousands of prisoners out early and forcing mass immigration into the country?
    1: I meant cutting bus routes which pensioners rely on or the public services they need.

    2: Letting off the bankers?

    3: The prisoners one was funny. Hasn't Ken Clarke just decided that drug dealers can just get community service now, or that knife crime offenders shouldn't be jailed?

    4: Immigration started in the 50s. Don't be a hypocrite; I bet you know somebody who lives abroad, should they be kicked out? Also, it's a clause in the EU which allows people to come abroad.

    I don't need to mention the BROKEN PROMISES our beloved Government promised to bring in:

    The Military Covenant (even the Tory supporters are going mad about it)
    British Bill of Rights
    Frontline Services being cut
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    1: I meant cutting bus routes which pensioners rely on or the public services they need.

    2: Letting off the bankers?

    3: The prisoners one was funny. Hasn't Ken Clarke just decided that drug dealers can just get community service now, or that knife crime offenders shouldn't be jailed?

    4: Immigration started in the 50s. Don't be a hypocrite; I bet you know somebody who lives abroad, should they be kicked out? Also, it's a clause in the EU which allows people to come abroad.

    I don't need to mention the BROKEN PROMISES our beloved Government promised to bring in:

    The Military Covenant (even the Tory supporters are going mad about it)
    British Bill of Rights
    Frontline Services being cut
    1.That's councils not the government and many have been doing it for years like my Labour run council a few years ago.
    2.They've done a lot more than Labour would ever do. Bank Levy to raise £10 billion over 4 years-opposed by Labour. Banking reform review-again opposed by Labour and it was labour that signed the contracts with the banks last year stating their bonuses must be paid at the market rate.
    3.Got that one from the newspapers did you?
    4.Wrong again it was the then Labour government that passed a law allowing all 800 million Indians the legal right to settle in the UK in the 40s and it was Labour that increased net migration from 77,000 in 1997 to 239,000 last year and ONS figures show 80% came from outside the EU.

    As for broken promises that a cheek. It was labour that twice broke their promise on tuition fees by introducing them and then bringing in top up fees after saying they wouldn't on both occasions. They also promised not to raise the top rate of tax but did. They also promised no more boom and bust and british jobs for british workers. They also promised to improve education yet we've gone down in all the league tables.

    As for cuts to front line services how ignorant can you get? Thats been happening for years under Labour through the backdoor as usual.

    And as I've just seen you say you're 18 what right do you have to talk and criticise past tory government when you weren't even born?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leetay)
    1.That's councils not the government and many have been doing it for years like my Labour run council a few years ago.
    2.They've done a lot more than Labour would ever do. Bank Levy to raise £10 billion over 4 years-opposed by Labour. Banking reform review-again opposed by Labour and it was labour that signed the contracts with the banks last year stating their bonuses must be paid at the market rate.
    3.Got that one from the newspapers did you?
    4.Wrong again it was the then Labour government that passed a law allowing all 800 million Indians the legal right to settle in the UK in the 40s and it was Labour that increased net migration from 77,000 in 1997 to 239,000 last year and ONS figures show 80% came from outside the EU.

    As for broken promises that a cheek. It was labour that twice broke their promise on tuition fees by introducing them and then bringing in top up fees after saying they wouldn't on both occasions. They also promised not to raise the top rate of tax but did. They also promised no more boom and bust and british jobs for british workers. They also promised to improve education yet we've gone down in all the league tables.

    As for cuts to front line services how ignorant can you get? Thats been happening for years under Labour through the backdoor as usual.

    And as I've just seen you say you're 18 what right do you have to talk and criticise past tory government when you weren't even born?
    Firstly, does that mean you can't criticise the Callaghan Government? According to your profile your 28, if my maths is correct you was born in the early 1980s. Which means for Thatchers PMship you wouldve been 10 at most. You must have a fantastic memory. What a stupid, ignorant, pathetic point of an argument you tried raising. Hypocrite.

    1: I believe it's got worse since we've needed to make these draconian cuts.

    2: Is that why the bank levy brought in by Osbourne will raise LESS than the Labour levy did?

    3: Has anybody denied that Clarke is doing this?

    4: I never said it wasn't Labour? I don't have a problem with immigration coming in to Britain - the skilled workers are valuable. If it's such a problem why hasn't the Tory Government stopped it?

    I notice how you didn't mention the Military Covenant or the British Bill of Rights OR the knife crime policy (Tory manifesto I believe)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think they are progressive in the sense that they set up the NHS and encouraged a democracy by removing hereditary lords (What's the argument against this, I would be interested to know).

    However, I would never vote them, because they seem to spend money we don't have and encourage a welfare state, which in my opinion encourages a bad work ethic, which isn't good for the economy. For example - People are having babies for free houses. People are not going to work because they know that they can sit on their backsides all day and get paid for it, plus cheap/free accomidation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    Well how would I afford anything in life if I didn't have a job? Also, I'm 18 years old, the job I currently have will do a lot for my future career. Its learnt me a lot of skills which will benefit my education in the future
    The part about voluntary internship or a job to just put your foot on the ladder was a scenario. Not addressing you specifically. But you can afford a living by applying for a job.

    (Original post by tulley11)
    Isn't it contradictory that we campaign for other countries to stop paying their workers literally NOTHING when there is some people who want to scrap the very thing that provides family with pivotal income?

    I have got the feeling that you have completly different circumstances to me and others.
    I have very average living circumstances and current looking for jobs that pay as from as little as £6/hour. I don't think we're being as contentious as it seems here. I'm just trying to look at the evidence.

    In other countries where multinational corporations under pay overseas workers, that's a different case entirely, but in this country again, there isn't a single piece of evidence to suggest that that the rare jobs which would normally pay £3/hour and requires very little skill, would have its pay increased, but instead chances are that job probably wouldn't exist anymore and the business would find a way around it.If you can have better luck finding evidence that says otherwise, then yeah I'll change my mind about that.
    Most businesses would rather keep their costs to a minimum but of course will pay the market value of the job other wise will get no one to do the job. That's the cold fact of the matter. 95% of jobs out there are 'above' the minimum wage.

    I'm just going to assume here you're not one of those unlucky to be priced out of the jobs market and now have to compete for jobs that they have no chance of getting. There are some people who desperately need that first job because of a mistake they might have made in the past to get a criminal conviction or they need some money while they take a reading/writing course (or for whatever reason) because they are far less employable than your average school leaver, so that they can prove themselves to future employers a few months down the line and apply for jobs that you and I would with a more reasonable wage for the long term.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    Firstly, does that mean you can't criticise the Callaghan Government? According to your profile your 28, if my maths is correct you was born in the early 1980s. Which means for Thatchers PMship you wouldve been 10 at most. You must have a fantastic memory. What a stupid, ignorant, pathetic point of an argument you tried raising. Hypocrite.

    1: I believe it's got worse since we've needed to make these draconian cuts.

    2: Is that why the bank levy brought in by Osbourne will raise LESS than the Labour levy did?

    3: Has anybody denied that Clarke is doing this?

    4: I never said it wasn't Labour? I don't have a problem with immigration coming in to Britain - the skilled workers are valuable. If it's such a problem why hasn't the Tory Government stopped it?

    I notice how you didn't mention the Military Covenant or the British Bill of Rights OR the knife crime policy (Tory manifesto I believe)
    1.It's always been like it. My local Labour council closed our theatre, library and two out of three post offices and sold of the old peoples homes in 2008.
    2.Labours bonus tax was a one off which according to Alistair Darling raise £2billion. The bank levy is permanent and will raise £2.5 billion every year.
    3.They don't really have to. The media make all sorts of nonsense claims all the time and you should take it with a large pinch of salt.
    4.They've only been in government for 10 months. I'm not saying it needs to be stopped just halted which takes a long time.

    As for the Military Covenant it's going through parliament and only recently received its second reading. The British Bill of Rights is an issue which the two parties differ on so they've set up a commission to look into it. I'll give you the knife crime one.

    Whether you admit it or not Labour were more tory than the tories, especially under Blairs leadership.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Stanley Baldwin)
    Discuss.

    For I am seriously finding it impossible to find a simple single reason except "No more cuts!!!", but that then puts Labour into firm Marxist territory with the Communists and the hardline Socialist parties. To me, that is quite backwards.

    If 'Progressive' politics relates to reform, then Labour failed on all possible criteria since 1997. What they largely failed on (House of Lords reform...I think the economy is a simple one, so I won't bother putting it as the main headline feature of their failure!) is now being dealt with within one year by the Coalition.

    Seriously, what makes them 'Progressive'? Is it because the main party of the Coalition is called the 'Conservative Party'? From what I have seen from the coalition, they have proposed many, many reforms which are far from aiming to stay in the past. Tax, Health and other areas are being reformed.
    I don't think you can simply equate what is politically 'progressive' to what counts as 'reform' - as pretty much any substantive political change can be characterised as a 'reforming' one. For example, a socialist government's re-nationalisation of major industries could be characterised by them as a 'reform' of capitalist profiteering. The same problem no doubt applies to 'progressive', what I regard as progressive as a socialist isn't going to be what you regard as progressive as, say, a conservative, liberal or fascist.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.