Have the Tories helped the country more than the Labour government did in the pre-201

Personally, I believe that the Conservative government have done more good than Labour did, however, most people in my area remain loyal to Labour despite their overspending and immigration policies which have done no good. The Tories have drastically improved the economy and created more jobs and things are looking up. Opinions?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

tonberry

I'll have to brush up on my history to see what Labour was doing before 201

Reply 2

Martyn*

The Condem resolution was to sort out the public finances and to that end austerity would result. So that is what has happened since they came to power. The coalition did not form to improve the country, but to wind it back, and the fruits of that was years of austerity. Of course, some people have done good out of this austerity and have become richer for it. Others have had a bad time, such as those on low incomes and the unemployed.

Reply 3

Skip_Snip

There's a difference between helping the country and helping the people. Have the Condems made the numbers look like the country is recovering? Slightly, sure. Have the people been helped more than when Labour were in power - **** no.

Reply 4

username1344042

That's because Labour ploughed benefits into anyone and everyone that asked for them. Of course it looks like there was a better standard of living when the rich and middle incomes were paying for the millions on benefits who were never going to find work. Due to the recent tests introduced for eligibility for disability benefit, a million claimants withdrew. I know from what I see where I live and towns far from it that these people were never disabled and sought some free money and a work-free life. That's what Labour got you.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5

uktotalgamer

The Tories have definitely helped the county more than Labour did. Firstly starting with two points..

1. For a few years we ran we a completely unelected prime minister which is the biggest farce of them all.
2. I know it sounds like an old record now however Labour really did leave the country in one hell of a state. They really did.

I think the Tories have slowly removed some dependance upon country laid on benefits which is a step in the right direction. Labour created a society of money for nothing but also the theory that the state owes everyone something when in reality it doesn't.

The Tories have battled against increasing criticism time after time after time by left wing idiots with nothing but farcical ideas. I would quite happily vote Conservative next time without a problem. I wish people would open their eyes and realise that Labour have absolutely nothing to give. They have a terrible leader, a shadow chancellor who makes Georgie boy look like an economic genius and a whole front bench of champagne socialists peddling the tired Labour rhetoric of 'The Tories are hitting the poorest hard.'

All of that being said though I think Labour have a hope of winning the next election simply because they bleat on about all these Eutopian policies that sound great to the average non thinking voter who will gobble the ideas up and then we'd be set for another 4 years in the dark ages. Thatcher shut the mines dontcha know.

Reply 6

username1344042

Exactly.
All Labour has to mention are the mines and how the Tories are "posh" and they've got millions of people voting for them, who hate the idea of someone doing better than them, and think that the reason their town is awful is because they are having their "entitled" money cut..
The desperately "poor" people that Labour "support" buy 50" 3D TVs with their money. Can many middle class families do the same..?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7

Joeman560

I still don't understand why people vote labour.

Reply 8

Skip_Snip

Original post by olmyster911

Exactly.
All Labour has to mention are the mines

It's almost as if closing the mines was a completely stupid idea or something!!

Reply 9

yo radical one

I honestly believe that the recovery would have been roughly the same under Labour and that unless the government was actively trying to mess things up it all happens naturally.

Reply 10

Rakas21

To answer this question depends on the metric you want to choose.

Is the economy anywhere near the brilliant state it was in during the 1993-2003 period, no. Is the economy structurally better than the 2004-2010 period, yes.

On education, foreign policy, employment, taxation and reducing the deficit i think the coalition is doing a brilliant job. Certainly the main reasons for sluggish growth in 2011 and 2012 would have occurred under Labour anyway (Eurozone and a halving in capital spending).

Where i think the coalition needs to improve is in poor implementation of welfare policy, attracting business investment which still fell in 2013 and in tackling long term woes like our housing and trade deficits. Growth while good is at 2.8% to date still below the 4%+ years seen in the 1993-2003 period.

On a number of issues like defense, immigration and health i'm largely neutral although i don't like the noises they make about immigration.

.......

Having voted Tory in 2010 i am impressed enough to do so again although kudos to the Liberal Democrats who have been much more impressive than i ever imagined.

..........

And yes i know i included the Major years but it was part of the same cycle and the Labour woes were really all post-2003.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 11

uktotalgamer

Original post by Joeman560

I still don't understand why people vote labour.

Because they give people money for free. C'mon, if someone offered you money for nothing you'd take it as well. Also, they're all like "Yeah lets tax the rich" then wonder why the rich are trying to avoid tax so much...

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 12

Rakas21

Original post by yo radical one

I honestly believe that the recovery would have been roughly the same under Labour and that unless the government was actively trying to mess things up it all happens naturally.

I agree essentially. While i prefer the coalition plan its notable that the difference in spending planned post-2015 is currently 0.7% GDP.

Reply 13

username1344042

Original post by Rakas21

On education, foreign policy, employment, taxation and reducing the deficit i think the coalition is doing a brilliant job.

I actually don't agree that they've done a brilliant job with education. For one, they've changed exams seemingly every other month so teachers and students have no idea what's going on any more. Other than that, you're right.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 14

Huskaris

I don't get it. The economy is growing better than most of the G20 and we are doing far better than most. But then again, its the Tories who did it... Boo!

Reply 15

uktotalgamer

Original post by Algorithm69

There's also still huge resentment from the Thatcher era and closing the mines. My home region, the North East, will never vote Conservative again I feel.

I am also from the North and echo your sentiment. Thirty years later 'Thatcher shut the mines, dontcha know.' Despite the fact that Callaghan and Wilson shut more mines than Thatcher did... It's pathetic. The mines were making no money. Who on earth keeps a failing business open.

Reply 16

MagicNMedicine

A lot of people like to repeat the general mantra "Labour spent more on benefits and created a society dependent on hand outs".

When someone says that its a pretty sure bet they don't really know anything about benefits policy. Ask them what were the main changes Labour brought in to benefits policy, or what were the increases in benefits levels that came in under the Labour government and they won't know. They just like the idea of saying Labour was the party of scroungers.

The truth is the two big spikes in social security spending took place under the Thatcher government and the Major government. Whilst those spikes were driven by the two recessions of the period, even during the two boom periods of the Conservative government of 79-97, social security spending never returned to the levels it had been under Labour in 1979 which suggests there had been structural changes that meant we were spending more on social security.

Until it rose again during the recession, there were no real changes in social security spending under Labour, they brought it down a couple of percentage points from 1997 levels and then bumped around the 11 per cent mark.

Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies, A Survey of Public Spending in the UK, Sept 2009

Reply 17

Rakas21

Original post by MagicNMedicine

Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies, A Survey of Public Spending in the UK, Sept 2009

Does that include pensions?

Reply 18

MagicNMedicine

Original post by Rakas21

Does that include pensions?

Yes, so you may expect a general upward trend in the absence of policy reform. The flatline period of the Blair years suggests tightening in other areas, probably that increased pension claimants were being balanced by a movement of people from working age benefits to employment.

Reply 19

meenu89

Original post by Huskaris

I don't get it. The economy is growing better than most of the G20 and we are doing far better than most. But then again, its the Tories who did it... Boo!