To traditional Labour voters and those that care about workers rights and the NHS who have voted Labour in the past and are planning to vote Conservative at the 2010 general election. I don’t think Labour’s done a particularly good job in many areas of government, but they do have their successes as well like […]
Continue Reading Why I’ll Never Vote Conservative at a General Election
This thread is fundamentally flawed!
You’ll notice that David has created all his questions on what Labour have actually managed to do; completely missing out on the areas which the Labour government have completely failed, basically rhetorical in nature. Basically saying that he would never vote Conservative on the speculation on what they wouldn’t have done juxtaposed to Labour? – Tenuous at best.
At the moment we have a Prime Minister (previously the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we can all see how good during this spell) which WASN’T actually voted into power. To gear a question up like David: would we have a Prime Minster who no-one actually voted for under the Tories?
View Comment
Before David responses with a 500 word essay, I can answer your question in one sentence:
You did vote him into power, since you vote for parties not the leaders.
Conservatives and Labour have both done it multiple times (With the same complaining both times) in the past, it’s called UK democracy. Love it or go to China :D
View Comment
Actually i voted Conservative so I didn’t :D
Which is exactly the reason why we should all have 2 votes when it is a general election. As the people you want to run your local area is not neccessarily the same people you wish to entrust running the country to. As always the system sucks!
Why is this such a big deal. You vote for the person you want to represent you and your area. They within their party then vote for a person to lead them. Nobody has voted for any PM in history, this is not how our current system works.
I willl never vote for the Tories, as they are untrustworthy, and will always look after those with the money, not those who really need the help. Labour have not done well, and in places done terribly. But the rights and lifes of those who don’t earn £30k or over are probably in a better place, than they ever were before.
View Comment
‘UK General Election 2010 site is not affiliated with any political party including Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, Greens, BNP’
Although the creator is a devoted Labourite
My general election site is not affiliated with any political party.
I’m not a member of any political party, I’ve never been a member of any political party or group.
This website is my first step into the political arena so to speak, always had an interest in politics, but this is my first active interest beyond bitching about politics and doing nothing about it (not that I think my sites going to change the nature of British politics or anything :-)).
Yes I vote Labour and will vote Labour on May 6th, but would vote Liberal Democrat (I think it’s time for a REAL change) IF the Boston and Skegness constituency wasn’t a two horse race. With Labour struggling country wide and loosing the support of the British electorate I can’t see how Labour can possibly win here with the 2005 results being a clear Tory majority of 6,000. If it was a three horse race I’d vote Lib Dems, as it is a vote for the Lib Dems here is a vote for the Tories and I dislike them SOOOO much.
I’m going to have to make a list of what I’ve been labeled since starting this site.
Communist
UAF scum
Labourite
I forget the rest, but it’s quite a long list of silly political labels.
David
View Comment
Quote from David https://general-election-2010.co.uk/liberal-democrats-to-win-the-general-election/ ):
“First off stop laughing, I’m being serious and though I like the Liberal Democrats I’ve only ever voted Lib Dems tactically once when I lived in an area where Labour couldn’t win, so I have no vested interest in making this sort of stuff up”
To me this would gain you the ‘label’ Labourite and also show a clear bias towards Labour, notwithstanding this actual thread title and contents; if the site states no affiliation it would be fair to expect the original threads to be objective & the comments therefore ‘the debate’.
Would you not agree?
View Comment
Laborite definitions:
1. A member or supporter of a labor movement or union.
2. Laborite A member of a political party representing labor.
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an adherent of the Labour Party
1 : a member of a group favoring the interests of labor
2 capitalized a : a member of a political party devoted chiefly to the interests of labor b usually La·bour·ite : a member of the British Labour party
—————-
Of the above definitions none of them really cover me unless you consider anyone who votes Labour a Laborite?
I don’t care how you label me, if that’s the best argument you have against my arguments, well that’s a bit shallow!
To reiterate, I’m not a member of any political party or political group. I usually vote Labour, though over the last few days have decided to vote Liberal Democrat even though it’s a real long shot they’ll even place second in the Boston and Skegness constituency, but Labour aren’t going to win here, so taking a punt on Nick Cleggs popularity resulting in a big swing from Labour and the Conservatives (my poll has the Lib Dems gaining over 50% the vote share since Saturday!).
And YES this is to try to keep the Conservatives out of power.
Am I biased against the Tories, YES.
Am I affiliated with any political party, NO.
What is so difficult for you to understand this? Bias and affiliation are not the same thing. Of course I’m going to have a bias towards my political views, I’m not pretending to be a moderator on something like Question Time, it’s a BLOG run by one person.
Regarding the nature of my posts, yes some of them are heavily biased to my political beliefs, it was the whole point of creating the site in the first place to try to change political opinions to the way I see things through reasoned debate.
I’m stopping no one from offering their counter argument as both a comment or separate article via the forum at https://general-election-2010.co.uk/politics/. If your arguments are better than mine, that’s fine, I don’t expect to win every debate.
If you want to write a “Why I’ll Never Vote Labour at a General Election” article, (I couldn’t write that article after all) I won’t stop you adding it to my site as either a comment or a separate article under the forum** as long as it’s unique content (if it’s copied content so already published on another site I might delete it as it can damage the sites search engine rankings).
** I hope to open this site up to others who want to start a political blog, but waiting for the next version of WordPress (software used to create this site) to be released which is supposed to offer the ability to allow others to create their own blogs. Unlikely to be before the election, looks like WordPress 3.0 is a bit behind schedule.
David
View Comment
It amuses me you call me shallow for highlighting your flaws; however i shall comment on the content of your original thread:
You state: What would the NHS look like today under the Tories after another decade plus of under investment?
No, under the Tories the NHS would not have been mismanaged; over the past 13 years we have seen the Labour government create huge layers of bureaucratic nonsense which in essence takes away from actual patient care.
You specifically state that the Tories would under invest; yet their current policy contradicts this statement: Their policy declares that they will Increase spending on the NHS every year )
You state: Would we have anything like a national minimum wage or would we still be aiming for sweatshop Britain trying to compete on price not quality?
I’d like to highlight this story: https://www.conservatives.com/ShareTheFacts
It seems that whether or not the Labour government increased the minimum wage or not; they clearly couldn’t create policy or structure to enforce these increase.
You state: Would we have guaranteed job/training place for 18-24 year olds unemployed for 6+ months under a Tory government or would we be loosing another generation to long term unemployment like we had in the 1990s?
Yes, actually better; again you clearly haven’t read The Conservative Policy: The Work Programme – simplifying Labour’s numerous and piecemeal programmes into one single back-to-work programme for everyone who is unemployed, including the 2.6 million people claiming Incapacity Benefits currently excluded by Labour’s plans. Support will be provided based on an individual’s needs rather than the benefit that they are claiming.
)
Would the Conservatives have signed the Social Chapter resulting in worker rights like a right to four weeks paid holiday, a right to parental leave, extended maternity leave, a right to request flexible working hours and the same protection for part-time workers as full-time workers?
Yes: Refer to policy for reasoning:
You state you can not understand how anyone who would consider themselves a Labour voter would seriously consider risking the country to the Conservatives for 5 years! We can see the state the country has been put into due to a 13 year labour government, economy in shatters, unemployment high and rising, immigration out of control and thousands of University leavers unable to get employment. HOW COULD WE DEAL WITH MORE FAILURES DUE TO ANOTHER 5 YEARS OF LABOUR!!!
View Comment
WOW you are actually trying to defend the Conservative record on the NHS!!!
You can not seriously argue the Conservatives would have done a better job with the NHS over the last 13 years!!!
When Labour came to power in 1997 we had doctors working 3 days in a row (illegal now), people dieing on trolleys in waiting rooms and waiting lists that were so long many died on them!!!
It’s a completely different NHS today and run a heck of a lot better than the last Tory government managed it and to say otherwise you are either lying for political gain or deluded.
I’m shocked anyone would say the Tories did a better job with the NHS.
The NHS under Labour has made significant steps in the right direction and they have made mistakes. It’s an enormous institution obviously things are going to go wrong. However where under the Conservatives the NHS had widespread problems on the front line, today problems on the front line are no longer widespread. We don’t hear of people waiting on trolleys for 18 hours in most hospitals, now we here of individual hospitals failing to meet high standards (put in place by Labour) and individual doctors or teams screwing up royally.
The problems with the NHS are now localised, not systemic as it was under the Conservatives.
Regarding bureaucracy, yes they probably have too much bureaucracy and that money would be better spent on front line services, that would be a future improvement I’d like to see.
BTW I said “What would the NHS look like today under the Tories after another decade plus of under investment?”
That is clearly asking the question what would have happened if the last 13 years had been under the Conservatives, not what they would they do IF they get in power on May 6th.
We have no idea what the Tories will actually do after May 6th (politicians say one thing to get our vote and do another) if they take power, but we do know what they were doing 13 years ago and had they won the 1997 general election it’s obvious they’d have continued to under invest in the NHS.
BTW where did I call YOU shallow? I said the argument you used was shallow. I have no idea if you are shallow or not and don’t really care as long as you are open to engage in debate, which you apparently are, so that’s a positive for you.
David
trying to defend the Conservative record on the NHS!
Firstly, you called me shallow here: “I don’t care how you label me, if that’s the best argument you have against my arguments, well that’s a bit shallow!” extract from comment (April 21st, 2010 at 15:10)
Secondly you state: That is clearly asking the question what would have happened if the last 13 years had been under the Conservatives, not what they would they do IF they get in power on May 6th. How else would it be possible to ‘speculate’ on what the The Conservatives would have done without looking at their CURRENT policies? I think their current policies are more valid than 20+ year historic performance where technology proved an obstacle within the NHS.
The reason I am hugely sceptical of the so called significant steps in the right direction is that although front line services have undoubted been improved this is merely counteracted by nonsense bureaucracy; my grandfather, 2 years ago, needed heart surgery following a minor stroke. The then body within the NHS set a date for this operation, we which subsequently not put back once, not even twice, but three times; within this period my grandfather had a major stoke followed two days after by a heart attack and passed away.
I believe this could have been prevented by the front line services if only backroom bureaucracy was not completely mismanaged.
Notwithstanding my experience above, which i accept is my own isolated experience, when my grandfather was in hospital (Southampton’s Saint Anne Hospital) he fell out of bed whilst staying over night; he was left their for 2 hours before a nurse ‘found’ him….i wouldn’t exactly call this a great front line service…would you?!
Despite all the above, many hospitals have been self certifying their audits under the labour government; so how really can we be sure that ALL, because I do accept there have been some, the improvements are legitimate.
View Comment
If you consider what I wrote:
“I don’t care how you label me, if that’s the best argument you have against my arguments, well that’s a bit shallow!”
as calling YOU and not your argument shallow I pity your ability to understand basic English (though that would explain your weak arguments).
Your arguments as a whole are pretty shallow, they lack real substance.
I have no problem with calling a person shallow if I thought they were shallow, I don’t care if you are or are not shallow, (how does it impact this discussion?) I do care that you are trying to pervert the argument into me apparently resorting to personal insults and for that reason I’ll make it really easy for you.
You are an idiot.
There you go, now you can rightly say I called you an idiot, but I didn’t call you shallow :-)
David
View Comment
Anyone who votes for Labour and another 5 years of Socialist ruin for this country is an idiot….by extension that means you.
You haven’t address anything I have put in the comment; all you have stated is that my argument is shallow!
Deluded.
Finally he accepts I was calling his argument and not him shallow.
Thank you.
I plan to respond separately to the actual points you’ve made.
David
“Anyone who votes for Labour and another 5 years of Socialist ruin for this country is an idiot….by extension that means you.”
I’d rather be a Labour voting idiot than a Tory voting selfish b#####d.
Maybe you missed my recent posts and comments, I’m voting Liberal Democrat on May 6th.
If the Liberal Democrats win we get electoral reform and under most voting systems the Lib Dems would like the Conservative party will never again be the majority in power.
If we have a hung parliament the Lib Dems and Labour coalition are the most likely out come. Under that scenario we’ll at least get the alternative vote system which again means we’ll probably never get another Conservative majority in government.
Keeping the Tories out of government with a clear majority is good for Britain and a vote for Labour or the lib Dems is the only way to keep them out long term.
David
View Comment
Having double the expenditure on the NHS, it would be an outrage if it had not improved. The real question should be whether we are getting value for money and whether we can afford it. (for Labour supporters, i.e. economics does not come naturally, “afford it” means can the annual cost (including repayment of the numerous PFI schemes) of running the NHS be paid for out of current tax receipts.)
View Comment
Labours National Minimum Wage
That’s a really good red herring Terry. your argument is some people don’t get the national minimum wage (which is illegal), so the entire minimum wage was a bad idea!
Hmm, nice way to twist the argument and not answer the real question, would the Tories have ever brought in a National Minimum Wage? And the answer is almost certainly NO.
And is the national minimum wage at risk with a new Tory government? And the answer is possibly, there’s a group of Tory backbenchers that tried to bring in a bill that would allow employers to NOT higher people who refused to work below national minimum wage! Had that legislation gone through (obviously blocked by a Labour majority in government) it would have made the concept of a national minimum wage a joke.
I’ll play with your red herring though, love looking at these sorts of arguments and poking holes in them.
Lets take the Conservative figures for those paid below national minimum wage as fact, even though we all know the Conservatives are not very good with getting their figures right.
“the number of people paid less than the minimum wage has doubled from 248,000 in 2005 to 445,000 in 2008.”
Would be nice to have access to where the Tories got these numbers from so we can see who the people are: does this include illegal workers or cash in hand workers for example?
Anyway, lets assume they are legit figures.
I realise the dates don’t match up, but I’m using it for emphasis (will be a little off the real figures) http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/unemployment.htm says “Nearly 29 million people were in work in November (2009) to January (2010) according to the labour force survey (LFS)”
So around 29,000,000 people are employed (at the end of 2009). Of those 445,000 where illegally paid below the national minimum wage (in 2008) according to the Tories.
Can you work out the % number of people paid below national minimum wage Terry?
It’s around 1.5%.
Not exactly widespread abuse and as mentioned earlier would be nice to know who these people are. I would expect these are mostly illegal immigrants and cash in hand workers as they tend to be paid below national minimum wage (cash in hand).
If I’m right on the illegal immigrants part this is not a failing on the national minimum wage legislation, but businesses hiring workers illegally which the government is cracking down on with up to £10,000 fines per illegal worker found (form what I’ve seen on TV, the average fine if around the £5,000 level)!
This is a red herring and you know it Terry.
Lets imagine the Tories won the 1997 election and had stayed in power ever since. I’d have bet my left nut on them not bringing in a national minimum wage, so where would workers be today?
Labours made some calculations on their site that estimates without a national minimum wage people on low pay in 1997 (£1.20 an hour) would be paid around £1.38 an hour today!
I think this is an under estimate based on inflation, I worked the numbers out https://general-election-2010.co.uk/is-the-national-minimum-wage-safe-under-a-conservative-government-poll/ and came to a figure of £1.60 an hour. Check the page above and do the calculation yourself.
I’m self employed and earn way more than the national minimum wage, but I remember when I was 16 years old earning £1 an hour and working 50 to 55 hours a week on a road (civil engineers assistant) and a low wage like that meant I couldn’t spend much money, which meant despite working hard I wasn’t stimulating the economy by spending money on products and services.
Do you really want a country where workers are paid less than £2 an hour, because that’s where we would be today had the Conservatives won all recent elections?
When it comes to the national minimum wage. I have nothing but good things to say about the Labour party.
I am so thankful that it looks like we won’t be getting a Conservative majority on May 6th and the national minimum wage will be protected from the uncaring Tories for a further 5 years.
David
Labours National Minimum Wage
This undermines Labours Global Economy argument though……
I disagree.
David
You would, you don’t knwo what you’re talking about
Itas a hrad choice because people are still suffering under Labour still. What one promises does not always happen and at what cost!!!!
The problem with the premise that Labour are poor on the economy and it’s resulted in a failing of our economy over Labours time in office is not true.
You can’t have done any serious research on this as you’d know the information I’m about to give you and then you wouldn’t have said what you just said.
Take a look at https://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2010/03/15/government-debt-as-percentage-of-gdp-1990-2008-usa-japan-germany/
In particular this graph from the article which shows debt relative to GDP for major economies.
Of the 8 major economies listed, only Korea had lower debt relative to GDP than the UK.
Yes, we have had a deficit even in the good time, but so has most major economies like ours.
I have to admit as a person who hates to be in debt I don’t fully understand why major economies like Britain, Germany, USA etc… have kept this level of debt in the growth years. They keep this level of debt so they can afford to pay for things earlier than if they had to wait until the country had a surplus. Not very smart IMHO, but then I don’t pretend to be an economist.
What I know from this information is it’s not that Labour are running the economy like numpties, but it’s the norm to run at a debt level of over 40% GDP and in comparison to our trade partners, our debt level is lower than theirs.
If you were right about Labour and “management of the economy, Gordon Brown’s record has been like a child in a candy shop” wouldn’t we expect to have a much higher level of debt relative to GDP for the period 1997 up to when the banking crisis hit?
I see a stable level of debt up until the credit crunch and even then it’s lower than similar economies like Germany. Labours run the economy very well compared to similar countries and better than the Conservatives IMO since they have kept the debt level stable and managed to spend a lot of money on public services like the NHS etc… The Tories struggled to keep our debt level down and cut public services (double fail).
The way you talk we’d expect to see our government debt along the lines of Japan’s which looks like it’s tripled percentage wise!!!
You are wrong about Labour, they’d manged the economy well up until the world banking crisis resulting in growth and stable levels of government debt.
Even now with the very expensive bailing out the banks and economic stimulus package, the level of debt is still lower than most similar economies like Germany.
After looking a these numbers you have to admit you are wrong.
“your comments imply that you think the UK government has not got a financial problem.”
It wasn’t my intention to imply that. I was trying to show that our economy and in particular how it’s been managed by Labour was not an unmitigated disaster as the vast majority of people who comment about it on my site seem to think (clearly they aren’t doing this sort of research and just listening to the tabloid media for their sound bites!).
Of course we are in financial difficulties, (it’s s huge debt. I never said it wasn’t) but it’s been much worse in the past and unlike in the past (after World War II) we have a strong adaptable economy that can cope with this level of debt without having to completely destroy what Britain is currently all about under Labour: good public services, improved NHS, workers rights near the top of the agenda all good stuff IMO.
It will mean belt tightening, but it’s not so bad that we need to panic like the Conservatives have planned. Lets not forget when the banking crisis hit the Tories didn’t want to do anything to lesson the pain! Every step of the way it was cut, cut, cut, cut…. and it’s only recently it’s changed from cut, cut, cut to we can save Britain by pretty much only being efficient (total rubbish)!
We could keep the debt levels relatively high for decades to come (we had to do that after World War II), but it’s better to bring the debt under control at a speed that doesn’t damage services too much (there’s got to be some damage) and doesn’t send 100s of thousands of British people to the unemployment lines as that will result in even more debt.
I think Labour have it about right and Conservatives have got it wrong pretty much on everything economy wise.
David
View Comment
David
I am afraid you are deluded. Because other countries are badly run does not mean that we need to follow suit. It is bad econimics to pay for current spending on borrowed money. Labour have over taxed & over borrowed during teh boom years. Yes, some public services have improved but not in proporion to the money spent on them. Unfortunately, there are too many Monkey votes for all political parties, i.e. if they put up a monkey they would still get a vote. I did not vote for the conservatives in 1997 nor in 2001. But it is now time for a change.
View Comment
Would take an economist or two to determine if the countries been run relatively well since Labour came to power.
Since you and I are not economists, we have to go on what others with a better understanding of economics say.
Places like the National Institute of Economic and Social Research https://www.niesr.ac.uk/
And the NIESC have published the following (yesterday I believe):
I find the above a balanced summary of Labour over the past 13 years. Doing quite well, but could do better.
That’s nothing like how you have described Labour as a kid in a candy shop and similar statements that make it sound like a bunch of buffoons took power and just spent, spent, spent with no thought of how it effects the economy!
Come on Charles you know it’s not been awful living in Britain since Labour came to power. You can argue Labour could and should have done better and I’ll fully agree with you, but it’s not been an unmitigated disaster as people like yourself like to make out.
IMO I think it would have been far worse under the Conservatives, the other day even David Cameron admitted the Conservatives were unelectable in 1997, imagine had they stayed in power until today! That was the whole point of this post and I don’t see that many differences between the Tories of 13 years ago and today: Ken Clark for example was in the last Tory government and he’s still at the forefront of the Tories.
Labour was aiming for sustainable growth to stop the boom and bust cycle that the Conservatives presided over (two recessions in a row under them!).
I fully accept like the vast majority of the rest of the world Gordon Brown missed the problems that caused the banking crisis, which led to the credit crunch, which caused the recession…
I’ll never understand how Gordon Brown (who I think has been very good on the economy) and thousands of other economists who advise world leaders missed this as I saw a problem coming with the housing market, we actually held off buying a house for over three years for this concern (housing bubble and housing price crash) only to buy at the blinking peak of house prices (couldn’t keep waiting). I still think house prices are too high, they haven’t dropped nearly enough.
I also think half the UK population knew house prices were unrealistically high, but didn’t fully understand why, we heard of ridiculous mortgage deals of 10x earnings etc… but never imagined just how retarded, greedy and reckless the bankers had been with giving out mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them and then selling them on to other banks as ‘safe’ investments!!!!
For me Gordon Browns only redeeming feature on the banking crisis is none of the other major economies saw it coming and acted, Conservatives didn’t see it coming, only the Lib Dems Vince Cable had an inkling of the problem that was developing and even he’s admitted he didn’t see it as bad as it really was. So it’s difficult to blame Gordon Brown for missing this when no one ‘important’ noticed the problem AND acted on it. Still, not impressed though and he’s lost some credibility in my eyes, though still better than anything the Tories can offer.
David
View Comment
David
I am not suggesting that everything that Labour has done has been awful and I agree we have had 11 years of boom. However, I am arguing that Labour does not deserve a vote for one simple reason:
Practically all economists have confirmed our public finances are in a mess. Although, as you have pointed out we are not bankrupt, the budget deficit is unsustainable. Also, I agree that Gordon Brown could not be held responsible but he did led the economy into the recession with a very large budget deficit having proclaimed that he would balance the books over the cycle. Despite his boasting that he abolished boom and bust everyone knows that bust follows boom, always has and always will, it is just a matter of degrees. Therefore, if he was being a prudent and honest chancellor he should have been running a budget surplus for a few years before the recession hit us.
Consequently, he failed as Chancellor in the same way that Sir Fred Goodwin failed as Chief Executive of RBS. I would be very surprised if you believed that we should have promoted Goodwin but that is exactly what Labour did. Therefore, if Labour cannot make a tough decision to fire a rather overbearing individual can we really trust them to make other difficult decisions.
Please note that this is not about whether the Conservatives would have done any better in the circumstances. I don’t know nor do you. I just don’t believe in rewarding failure.
View Comment
The economy under Labour has not been as bad as you suggest. I’m not saying the management of our economy by Labour was awesome either, it’s been OK and better than under the Conservatives (there management was terrible at times). Add to this the ‘new’ Tories making the wrong economic calls since the banking crisis and I have no confidence in the Conservatives managing our economy better than Labour. I think the Tories would muddle through if they win on May 6th, but I expect to see many mistakes just like when they were last in power. The are way too selfish and don’t think medium to long term or even at the big picture of the true costs of making millions unemployed! The Tories don’t care enough about the average British family.
I generally agree on your boom and bust point, not that we couldn’t theoretically get away from the boom and bust cycle, but we are in a world economy and has been painfully made clear recently we can not count on the world to be economically stable all the time.
So yes IMO a prudent government would have got the debt level down and aimed for reserves for the bad times (that’s how I live). This is just as true about the Conservative government before Labour and they were so bad at economic management (recall 15% interest rates!) we had just as high level of debt as under Labour before the banking crisis and the Conservatives under funded public services. At least with Labour they significantly increased public spending: not saying it was all spent wisely (a lot was wasted on stupid things), but at least the economy was doing so well under Labour (they’ve done really well with promoting business and attracting foreign investment) that they could increase public spending without increasing our level of debt relative to GDP **
** I don’t pretend to fully understand economics or our economy, but it has to be better to have no debts and wait until we can afford to pay for a program, so in hindsight I think it would have been wise to not spend quite so much on services and clear our debts completely and when out of debt spend the money we actually have on public services keeping a little in reserve for the inevitable rainy day: unfortunately government (all of them) think short term!
As I’ve said before it would appear the vast majority of economies like ours run at a level of debt anywhere from 40% to 80% of GDP even in the good times. Labour kept our level of debt relatively low at around 45% (so they didn’t mismanage our debt levels) up until the banking crisis when the bank bail outs and the economic stimulus plan was paid for using borrowed money pushing our level of debt up to over 60% GDP (but still lower than most similar economies including Germany).
Our current level of debt was required to protect us from the worst effects of the credit crunch, unless you think the Conservatives was right and the government should have let the crisis take it’s course and see what happened?
Now we are hopefully through the worst of the economic problems it’s time to look at reducing the debt and that’s what all three main parties plan to do. None of them have given any real idea of how they will do it, so like the rest of you I have no idea which of the three parties has the best ideas for the future.
All I have to go on is Labour appears to have called it correctly on bailing out the banks and the economic stimulus package, the Lib Dems generally agreed and Vince Cable appears to have been warning about something like the banking crisis and the Conservatives got every economic call so far wrong!!!
BTW I think Sir Fred Goodwin should have been prosecuted, but as I understand things there was nothing to prosecute him for. Similar with his bonus, that was the banks fault offering bonuses even when bankers failed!!! I don’t see what the government could have legally done much different even if I’d like to see him in prison and all his assets stripped.
David
View Comment
David
You are missing the point. I am not arguing about whether the Conservatives would have managed the economy better in the circumstances. You don’t know and I don’t know.
Gordon Brown FAILED as a chancellor because he was imprudent and left us ill prepared for the inevitable bust. A vote for Labour is a vote for failure.
I would be happy to discuss the relative merits of the alternatives!
View Comment
Just remember Labour where picking up the pieces from a conservative government and Mr Blair seemed to be the blue eyed boy but let us down. Mr Brown seems to be struggling to pick up years of mess. keep our money in Britain and I might vote Labour
We do need electoral reform which is why I agree on your “there are too many Monkey votes for all political parties” point.
It appears to be far worse in the Labour heartlands where in this election it looks like even if they come third in the popular vote we could still see Labour with most seats!!!
As someone who doesn’t want a Tory government in any form I’m happy it’s like that right now, but it can’t go on like this if we get a hung parliament with Labour being the 3rd party % wise, but 1st party seat wise.
Looks like whatever happens the Lib Dems are going to be the king makers, I hope to see a short term coalition government (around 2 years in power) until the economy is back on track and a new form of voting is brought into legislation after which an election is called.
Not sure which voting system is the best.
I don’t like proportional representation (PR) because it allows parties like the BNP to gain MPs.
Though I have to admit I don’t fully understand how PR works on the ground. Lets say country wide the BNP gain 5% of the popular vote, that should result in 30 odd seats if it’s shared equally seat wise. There’s not going to be anywhere near 30 seats with the BNP close to polling most votes, so which 30 odd constituencies are lumbered with BNP MPs where they didn’t vote BNP?
I better do some research on PR.
David
View Comment
Back to the real debate on the NHS and health care.
Labours made changes to the waiting lists recently which would mean if your personal experiences are real (not saying you’ve made them up, but you can’t be sure) the hospital would be in trouble and I believe your Grandfather could have gone for private treatment and the hospital would have had to pay for it.
It’s better now and what you describe was far worse under the Conservatives and had the Tories remained in power for the last 13 years do you really think we’d have a better NHS? Knowing what the Tories are like they’d have probably privatised the NHS by now and we’d me moving towards the awful USA medical health care system!!!
I’m sorry to hear your Grandfather fell out of bed in hospital, I hope he was OK and recovered from his heart operation?
These things happen, it’s an enormous institution and things will go wrong.
That being said what do you expect on a ward late at night, how often do you think the nurses should do ward checks?
I was in hospital (Lincoln hospital) February 2009 for a major operation on my back: had a 4 hour operation to fuse two degraded discs in my back (been suffering back pain for over a decade).
I spent six days on the ward in quite a bit of pain: 200 mgs of morphine a day took the edge off the pain (been on opiates for over a decade, so built up a tolerance) from the operation and literally couldn’t move more than a couple of inches for 3 days (was completely dependant on the nurses and their assistants) until the doctors got my pain meds right (took about 2 days to really listen to me and a day to get the dose about right).
My treatment wasn’t perfect, but it was better than I expected as I remember the horror stories from when the Conservatives were in power and though Labour said things had improved I was reluctant to believe them (politicians lie).
Biggest issue I had was convincing the nurses and doctors I needed more morphine and injecting and drinking morphine (that stuff tastes disgusting and something you don’t want on an empty stomach in the middle of the night!) when I thought I needed it to give a short-term decrease in pain wasn’t the answer: I started by not asking for morphine until I REALLY needed it, which in hindsight was a BIG mistake.
After realising I still needed a lot of pain meds I had to request morphine every 2 hours (couldn’t get a decent nights sleep) and I was taking so much that way it made me feel sick, side effect of high doses of morphine is nausea.
There approach was my pain would be temporary and the operation would have taken all the back pain away and so only post operative pain should be left: it’s a year on and they were wrong to make that assumption, still have back pain, though a bit better.
When they eventually listened and put me on time released morphine (what I’d been on for 10+ years, but higher dose for post operative pain) I could to some degree manage the pain, was still in agony, but at a level I could cope with as long as I didn’t move too much over the first week or two.
I’m not surprised this went wrong, someone asks for more morphine they must be a drug seeker. Truth was I was asking for less morphine overall, but time released so it worked over a 24 hour period rather than a theoretical short term significant drop in pain that wasn’t long enough to do anything with it and only worked if I took the maximum morphine they could give me in injection and liquid form!!
The above would work fine for short term pain, but my pain was chronic with acute post op pain thrown in on top.
Still on morphine now (over a year later, much lower dose mind you), operation might not have worked (better, but still in pain). Dropped my dose 5 mgs yesterday and feel like crap today, so if I snap at anyone could be that :-)
Despite the doctors taking their sweet time to believe me about needing time released morphine I’m happy with the overall treatment (even if they had listened I’d have still been in pain). Everything was on time (operation wise: I had to delay my operation due to illness and it was only put back 4 weeks), they were constantly cleaning the ward with disinfectant and alcohol wipes and most of the staff were helpful, though very busy and at times less than sympathetic (like I say not perfect).
I will give some advice to old people going in hospital, don’t wait for nurses to walk by to ask for help, if they are walking by it’s because they are probably going somewhere to help someone who has called them via their buzzer. If you need help, even a simple little thing, BUZZ. I’m not that old, but like most of the elderly people in the ward I was on I didn’t want to bother a nurse for a small thing and would wait for one to pass (big things I’d buzz for). Took me a few days to realise no matter how small the problem push the buzzer as the nurses and assistants are there to help and buzzing is how they know you need help and how they share their time between patients. The elderly people on the ward (especially the men) would wait for nurses to pass even for important things.
In contrast a nurse complained the women on the war would buzz for anything, during the day all you heard from the women’s side of the ward was buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz…. Maybe a nurse reading this could confirm this is the norm (I was after all on one ward and only one nurse said the above)?
I was surprised the food was quite good and I’m very fussy about food, their chocolate pudding was a joke, awful stuff, wouldn’t feed it a dog!
During nights on the ward I’d be awake quite a bit due to pain over the first few nights and the nurses were regularly back and forth to patients. I estimate they’d do a full ward check every 2-3 hours. I realise each hospital is different, but it’s not a big surprise a patient could fall out of bed and be left on the floor a couple of hours.
Would that really be any different if your Grandfather was sleeping under your roof, I assume you don’t wake on the hour to check your family members aren’t in any trouble?
It’s unfortunate it happened, but to blame the NHS is wrong on that point.
The NHS has improved so much under Labour, it’s not the same beast that was underfunded and falling to pieces under the Tories.
David
View Comment
Of course the NHS has improved. If you double its budget and build new hospitals (not paid for yet but that is another story.) it would not be incompetence but criminal.
I doubt that the Tories would have spent as much but in the unfortunate event that they had remained in power since 1997 I would be surprised if they had not spent more. (I say unfortunate because when a party remains in power for too long they become complacent. It happened to the Tories and it has happened to Labour)
Privatising the supply side of the NHS (which is not Tory policy unfortunatly) might be a good thing. It would not create an American style health system but actually something more like France.
View Comment
Having clearly destroyed Labour’s record on managing the economy, let us look at David’s other arguments:
Firstly, I would call myself a conservative with a small “c” but I would not have wished the Conservative Government to have continued in 1997, in fact we would have been better off if they had lost the 1992 election.
What would the NHS look like today under the Tories after another decade plus of under investment? In the dying days of the last Conservative Government, they started bring in reforms to make the NHS more accountable. Unfortunately, Labour scrapped them and several years later brought in similar reforms. A case of “Not Invented Here”. It is total supposition as to what the NHS would have been like under the Conservatives. Certainly it would have been different and they would not have increase expenditure by as much but since over half of it has not result in any added value, would that have been a bad thing?
Would we have anything like a national minimum wage or would we still be aiming for sweatshop Britain trying to compete on price not quality? The real point here is does the minimum wage make any difference as to whether we compete on price or quality. At its current level it does nothing to quality. If that was the objective then one should look to better education. A shame that Labour did not fulfil their first 3 priorities: “Education, Education, Education”.
Would barbaric blood sports like fox hunting be banned? Agreed, the Conservatives would not have wasted Parliament and Police time introducing a ban that has as much to do with animal cruelty as Al Qaeda has to do with Islam.
Would we have any House of Lords reform? I doubt it but has it been reformed? The appointment of duffers like Michael Martin to the House of Lords hardly constitutes reform. Sounds like a step backwards.
Would the MPs expenses ever have been brought to the light of day (Labour passed the legislation to open the books so to speak)? Again total supposition. Although, I suspect the problem would not have been handled better as we would not have had Michael Martin as speaker. By the way passing legislation does not fix a problem. One has to manage it. I heard recently that the cost of the reforms cost £3M to save £1M. Was it worth it? Not that I condone the abuse.
Would we have something like Sure Start and so many Sure Start Children’s Centres? I suspect we would have something similar. Better maybe, worse possibly!
Would we have guaranteed job/training place for 18-24 year olds unemployed for 6+ months under a Tory government or would we be loosing another generation to long term unemployment like we had in the 1990s? A better measure of success would be the number of jobs created in the private sector over the last 13 years? Not that many and certainly not as many as created by the Conservatives over their tenure. By the way creating jobs in the public sector, which Labour has done with abandon, does not generate wealth.
Would we have winter fuel payments of £400 for pensioners over 80 and £250 to the over 60s? Who knows, possibly!
Would we have increased child tax credit, would we even have something like child and working tax credits under the Conservatives? More than likely if the exchequer could afford it.
Would we have been the first country to adopt legally binding long term targets for reducing our greenhouse emissions, do you really see the Conservatives as a green party? Adopting targets does not reduce emissions. Since Labour has failed to address our energy security, I suspect that we are in a worse position than if the Conservatives had been in charge. To be frank none of the Political Parties are addressing the problem.
Would we have offshore wind farms that provide the electricity for 2 million homes? Almost certainly, yes!
Would the Conservatives have helped insulate over 5 million British homes through a Warm Front like scheme? Probably!
Would we have legal civil partnerships (same sex marriage) giving same sex couples the same legal rights as married men/women? I suspect so. They certainly endorse that now.
Would the Conservatives have signed the Social Chapter resulting in worker rights like a right to four weeks paid holiday, a right to parental leave, extended maternity leave, a right to request flexible working hours and the same protection for part-time workers as full-time workers? Definitely not! This has created more regulation for the wealth creators and lead to a lower level of employment. David, I would be quiet about this. Not one of Labour’s finest moments.
Would the Conservatives worked with the rest of the world to provide a coordinated response to the economic downturn to help families and businesses through difficult times? Remember the Tories were against the economic stimulus package, they wanted to let the recession run it’s course (mass unemployment and massive public sector service cuts). Total supposition! Had the Conservatives been in power they would have behaved differently than in opposition. All parties do and I think it is a shame but the one thing that is certainly not in dispute is that the public finances would have been in much better shape going in to the recession so we could afford to bail out Banks, etc.
Would our rivers, beaches and water be the cleanest they have ever been (part due to EU laws)? More than likely. By privatising the water authorities enabled Government to enforce these regulations without having to pay for them. Well done Margaret Thatcher.
Would NHS waiting lists be half a million lower than in 1997? Quite possibly! The Conservatives had plans to reform the way the NHS was managed.
Would the Conservatives have guaranteed an under 18 week wait for hospital treatment? No! That is a nonsense target. Some treatments need to be done immediately and others can wait. We could spend the entire wealth of the nation on the NHS and there still would be further demand. It is an unfortunate fact that this is a service that has to be rationed as the resources are limited. Setting grandiose targets from the centre is unlikely to be the best way to forward as can been seen by the experience over the last 5 years.
Would the Tories guarantee that if your GP suspects you may have cancer, you will see a specialist within two weeks? Another irrelevant target! When will Labour learn?
Would the Conservatives aim for a wait in A&E to be no longer than 4 hours? Remember the stories of ill people on waiting room trolleys for over 12 hours because the NHS was so under funded under the Tories. Again irrelevant targets! We hear the same stories now. I am not sure that helps the debate.
Would the Conservatives increased NHS doctors by 44,000 and over 89,000 more NHS nurses since 1997? Possibly but they would not have increased the back office staff by over 100,000!
Would the Tories investment in the NHS be nearly three times what it was in 1997? No, but can we afford it? In fact they have foolishly pledged not to cut NHS funding. Current funding of NHS expenditure can not be done by borrowing. That just leads to a Greek scenario.
Would the Conservatives have brought in a smoking ban in public places? Probably!
Would the Tories have given free off peak travel on local buses anywhere in England for the over-60s and eligible disabled people? Probably!
I can not understand how anyone who would consider themselves a Labour voter would seriously consider risking the country to the Conservatives for 5 years! I am astonished at the number of intelligent Labour voters who plan to vote Labour this time. If you can not bring yourself to vote for the Tories then don’t bother. I did the same thing in 1997 when it was time for a change. I made a mistake in 1992 and I should have voted for Labour. Hindsight is a wonderful thing!
View Comment
LOL on the “destroyed Labour’s record on managing the economy”, thanks for the laugh.
There’s a lot of probables and possibles in your comment above!
Why not answer the questions based on how the Tories of the 80s and 90s actually behaved rather than what the Tories of today (who are mostly the same sort of people from the 80s-90s) say they will act IF the country is stupid enough to vote them back in again.
Fortunately the polls point to the country in general not believing the Tories have changed. If the Conservatives can’t win a majority with how poorly Labour have run their general election campaign, I can’t see how they’ll ever win another majority!
Every public service was underfunded under the Tories, you can argue as much as you like about poor management in some areas and the Labour government wasting money (not that the Tories were any better), but at least the majority of the money that I agree should have been saved for a rainy day (like now) went to making the lives of British people better in the form of a better funded NHS etc… rather than straight into the pocket of multi millionaires who don’t give a rats ass about the working class people working for less than £1.50 an hour.
Two reasons to not vote Conservative and to vote Labour:
NHS
National Minimum Wage
David
View Comment