Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How have you, personally, lost out or benefitted from having a Labour government? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MilitantSheep)
    Well, I got into a private school the year that the number of subsidised places had been slashed from 14 to 5 by the government. They had changed the admissions policy to give the top five girls in the exam and I came sixth. Maybe my life would have taken a different turn if I'd been able to go, maybe not. But it still annoys me that if a private education is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO good, why would the left wing government lower the number of free places available when the right wing government (supposedly only interested in the rich, and blow everyone else), had left well alone?
    maybe because it isn't "SOOOOOOOOOOOOO good"?
    Looking at some of the exam marks in work (Summer work in the WJEC exam board), marks from private schools are hardly better than other schools. An average or 2 or 3 marks more at most. Even schools like Eton weren't that much better.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Adorno]Depth? You want to talk about depth. Okay: how's about 75% unemployment in numerous districts across County Durham, South Wales, Western Scotland. How's about state enforced means testing which removed state support from the most needy. That's the true depth of the interwar depression. This is only talked up in the Right Wing press as "deep" because some bankers lost their jobs at the beginning. It is gross revisionism to describe this as anything more than a more severe contraction that has been seen in thirty years. You insult the thousands of ordinary working families who spent years on the doll in the twenties and thirties by calling this "the deepest recession ever". [QUOTE]

    Is this before or after the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression?

    And as for abolishing boom and bust? Well, depends on what you take boom and bust to mean. But no, they have not. But then, soundbites are soundbites. Only fools believe the meaning that politicians pour into them.
    I think all know that he was never going to abolish boom and bust but the arrogance such a statement shows is beyond belief, it rub salt in the wounds of the 2.3 million people who are unemployed.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    "TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber has no doubt that this is the worst recession in 60 years."

    (SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8127248.stm)

    You know its bad when a TUC officials (someone who has a vested interested in praising the Labour party) is saying its pretty bad.
    This country has only been around for 60 years?

    Did the EU take us over or the immigrants?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    This country has only been around for 60 years?
    How long has economics been an academic discipline, subject to research? 60 years is quite sometime.

    Did the EU take us over or the immigrants?
    You're speaking to a Europhile btw :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    Is this before or after the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression?
    Wonderfully American-centric view of the interwar years you have. The Great Depression and the Wall Street Crash were not the causes of the long-standing interwar depression in Britain and other parts of Western Europe, they merely made matters worse. Most parts of industrial Britain - and I mean the old industries such as coal, steel, etc - did not have a 'roaring twenties'. They spent much of it on the scrapheap. There were major strikes in 1921, 1925, 1926. On and on and on because of unemployment and the fact that the Conservative government didn't do anything about it.

    Why do you think Nye Bevan thought Tories were vermin? I'll tell you: the Means Test, introduced by Neville Chamberlain and his Tory cronies. Fitting, then, that Chamberlain was Nye's first political demolition in the House.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Wonderfully American-centric view of the interwar years you have. The Great Depression and the Wall Street Crash were not the causes of the long-standing interwar depression in Britain and other parts of Western Europe, they merely made matters worse. Most parts of industrial Britain - and I mean the old industries such as coal, steel, etc - did not have a 'roaring twenties'. They spent much of it on the scrapheap. There were major strikes in 1921, 1925, 1926. On and on and on because of unemployment and the fact that the Conservative government didn't do anything about it.

    Why do you think Nye Bevan thought Tories were vermin? I'll tell you: the Means Test, introduced by Neville Chamberlain and his Tory cronies. Fitting, then, that Chamberlain was Nye's first political demolition in the House.
    I apologise for my lack of 2 years of research on the interwar period in southern Wales :p:

    and you know my view on One Nation Tory's already. This debate isnt about Tory failure, it is about the benefit of Labour, something which I believe is minimal.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MilitantSheep)
    Well, I got into a private school the year that the number of subsidised places had been slashed from 14 to 5 by the government
    What? Labour has been trying to force private schools to increase the number of subsidised places by forcing them to do something meaningful to maintain charitable tax-free status, not the other way round.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    I apologise for my lack of 2 years of research on the interwar period in southern Wales :p:
    It's not just South Wales. It's a large number of places in Britain. Point is, the Depression did not begin with the Wall Street Crash and thus to declare this a deeper recession than the interwar one is deeply insulting and something I trust you will never spout again.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snookercraze)
    Although some of us would have lived under a Tory government, we are far too young to recall how it was to live under them. However, from accounts of various people, the general consensus was that life was hard and unfair.

    However, we all have lived under a Labour government for the last 12 years, and so I ask you, how have you, personally, lost out? And what have you benefitted from?
    It was?! Hmm.... I havent a clue where you read/made that up from, but for a lot of people life was easier and fairer.

    Labour has done nothing for me, I pay higher tuition fees, I get taxed more, I support the hunt and we cant even do that properly any more, my petrol costs a lot more than it used to, and worst of all I have to see Great Britain falling apart at the seams due to an incompetent government and nanny state, you cant even blow your nose without the NHS telling you how! We have debts our generation cant hope to pay off, at least not without huge tax increases or spending cuts, mainly thanks to Gordons spending when things were good.


    So tell me, what has Labour improved, made easier, or fairer for me? Or you? Or about 65% of the population (ie; those who work.)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    It's not just South Wales. It's a large number of places in Britain. Point is, the Depression did not begin with the Wall Street Crash and thus to declare this a deeper recession than the interwar one is deeply insulting and something I trust you will never spout again.
    Okay, is this the deepest recession of the post-war period?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    Okay, is this the deepest recession of the post-war period?
    Tell me: is your rubbish still being collected? Are we faced with power cuts? Does the TV get switched off at 10pm because of the need to store energy? Are we on a three-day week?

    No. So, frankly, no this isn't the deepest recession of the post-war period. It's the deepest recession of our lifetimes but the social impact is nowhere near as severe as the recession of the 70s.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    How long has economics been an academic discipline, subject to research? 60 years is quite sometime.

    You're speaking to a Europhile btw :rolleyes:
    And yet the crashes of today are the same as as they were in the 18th century, with the 30's crash having a fair few similarilities to today.

    Didn't say you weren't. Interesting you didn't say you're a imiphile.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    Lets move on once more to the jewel in the crown of New Labour, the NHS. I actually think alot of good has been done with the NHS however this has been at a cost (literally, ill mention that in a sec). Waiting times is something that the government always crow on about. It is great that waiting times have been cut, I think we will all agree on that, but does the government realise that waiting times cannot be slashed and funding to GP's and to doctors on call reduced? The increased workload on A&E departments across the country has become ridiculous, because waiting times are so short, people are more willing to visit their A&E departments instead of waiting to see a GP, some of this take up these departments are not able to cater for. Targets are another ridiculous and totally bad thing this government has introduced, this government works with statistics like percentage of patients treated within 4 hrs or no of MRSA cases, what they should be measuring and assessing is how many MRSA cases were cured, not how many people were infected, outcomes should be measured.
    This I don't understand. There has been a large increase in funding for GPs. In fact, GPs are now opening in the evenings and at weekends when they never used to. GPs are more accessible than they ever have been.

    Waiting times for operations are a completely different issue - and a maximum time of 18months down to 18weeks is a great achievement. You don't go to A&E instead of seeing a GP - you've got something a bit muddled there.

    I love the way that whenever mentions Mrs Thatcher, some smart ass says 'poll tax' what that person does not realise the massive increases in taxation since 1997, it is criminal.
    The point about the poll tax was how unfair it was - not anything to do with general taxation levels.

    Labour dont give a damn about an individuals earning, gone are the days when one is able to work harder for a better life, under this government u are restricted by increased taxation at higher levels, penalised by a 'positive discrimination' bill, caught on CCTV at least 30 times a day and the incentives not to work are lucrative.
    Now this is rubbish. Tax rates have increased, but not nearly as much as you say they have. The top rate in Atlee's day was 95%, and it was well over 80% not that long ago - to talk of "the days" is misleading. In fact, the rich seem to be doing pretty well: we still have one of the leading financial centres in the world, people make enormous amounts of money in London, and that is in no small part due to regulatory changes made early on by Labour.

    Most Labour supporters are about people having opportunity to earn. It wasn't long ago that social status and income was completely determined by your parents - and in large part it still is, but this is changing, largely thanks to Labour governments. Just look at how many people are the first in their family to go to university in this generation. This is the headline for me: The Tories have opposed positive movement towards equality of opportunity at every stage, going all the way back to opposing giving seats to large towns over tiny boroughs and opposing giving the vote to anyone except the largest land-owners in the 1830s.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    Firstly, here's an example. It is, admittedly, a little far fetched but demonstrates the point. Person A dropped out of school at 12, and is unable to read or write and as a result has few skills, if any. They are long-term unemployed. Would it not be fair to say that at least part of the reason they are unemployed is that the skills they offer are not worth 5 GBP or so per hour that they would be legally obliged to receive? Surely if they could be paid 1 GBP per hour then an employer may be able to employ this person for a profit? Of course the state could 'top-up' this wage if it proved desirable.

    Secondly, surely it is the right of the employer to offer whatever wage her or she deems fit, and the right of an employee to accept that wage?
    The value of Labour isn't inherent in the way that it is with a commodity - it completely depends on what employers are doing. The reality of the situation is that even people employed in low level jobs are worth more than 5 GBP, hence the fact that the NMW didn't cause anymore than negligible unemployment. Its a nice argument in theory, but noone is so unskilled that their Labour is only worth £1 in a job. The problem is that there are always takers for unskilled jobs: without a NMW the situation you end up with is people being paid the bare minimum they will work for with the employer able to gain a very large profit.

    To put it another way, if your argument was true, then we would have expected to see a bunch of jobs paying £3 or £4 p.h. disappearing when the NMW was introduced. They didn't: employers raised wages, they didn't lay people off.

    I don't go in for this rights-based stuff. In theory, I'm for employees being able to accept low wages if they want. In practice, bargaining positions are unequal: because employers are large and employees are individual, any lee-way between what a worker will work for and what they are worth will automatically go to the employer, and where this results in poverty you have a problem.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Hm, I can't say exactly what I have gained or lost with any certainty... But I am glad that when I went through a rough patch of about 5 years in various council housing it was under a Labour government rather than a conservative one. There is a housing shortage, but we were given decent places fairly quickly considering this and I saw friends of mine having their council housing refurbished/double glazed/improved regularly. Would it have been the same under the Conservatives? Perhaps, perhaps not. If not, what would have happened to me?

    Free lunches, free London bus travel and EMA have made things much easier - I'm very grateful for it.
    I also enjoyed a 3 day arts and culture trip in central London and a weeklong Design & Technology course for the talented but underprivileged.

    Generally I have been treated with kindness and hopefully I will go on to be a hard working, tax-paying, useful member of society in return.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If the Tories had of been in power I probably would not of gone to university. And I question how many of TSR members would of gone as well. I have also benefited from the minimum wage and "24" hour drinking. If I finish work late I don't have to go home as I can have a few late night drinks at the pub and without coming back home and smelling of smoke.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just Another Student[B)
    ]If the Tories had of been in power I probably would not of gone to university. And I question how many of TSR members would of gone as well.[/B] I have also benefited from the minimum wage and "24" hour drinking. If I finish work late I don't have to go home as I can have a few late night drinks at the pub and without coming back home and smelling of smoke.
    So true. Shame most take it for granted.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    Would it not be also fair to say, though, that it has created a class of destitute poor who have remained unemployed due to their services not having the same value as the NMW and who are thus unemployable, in turn becoming wards of the state dependent on welfare?
    This is what the Tories thought would happen, but it didn't. The NWM is a decency threshhold and stops the vulnerable being exploited. No jobs were lost with its introduction. Before the introduction of the NMW there was famously a woman with special needs being paid £0.28 an hour. It is disgraceful that anyone's services would be deemed to be worth such a pitiful amount.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    maybe because it isn't "SOOOOOOOOOOOOO good"?
    Looking at some of the exam marks in work (Summer work in the WJEC exam board), marks from private schools are hardly better than other schools. An average or 2 or 3 marks more at most. Even schools like Eton weren't that much better.

    BUT THEY HAD SEXY NAMES, STFU :awesome:
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.