It seems that if a myth is peddled enough, it becomes true for a lot of people.
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It seems that if a myth is peddled enough, it becomes true for a lot of people.
None of those things will actually happen and tbh the NHS could use a kick up the arse, it's a stagnant thing that needs some serious reform. What does 'no free schools' even mean?
The problem is that neither are particularly good, Labour just pour money into public spending so everyone is happy for a year before they realize that we actually need the private sector to be growing, giving everyone jobs working for the public is feck all good to the country really.
but then Conservatives will cut all the money they can and pour it into the private sector, which pisses all those people who Labour employed off as most will no longer have jobs and service standards decrease.
It's a cycle that will go on forever. I see it more a case of choose which party seems the most capable, unfortunately both parties seem to be devoid of anyone with serious experience and any consistent views.
We had pretty good growth under Labour up until the crash. And the Tories pledged to match their spending.
Yeh, that minor thing. Labour are absolutely disastrous economically, and hence were voted out. A couple of years later and all seems to have been forgiven.
I'm sure they weren't at all abit responsible.
The policy of free schools would never have come into law under labour
What exactly about the NHS was failing so badly that it needed a kick up the arse? The 13 years of labour left the NHS in a great position with satisfaction at an all time high
That little thing caused the free market capitalists in the city
A lot of the new school policies such as academies and all of this were first thought of by a certain Tony Blair.I certainly wasn't satisfied, I went to hospital multiple times and obviously went to my GPs a fair amount and every time the staff were rubbish, insane waiting times and just generally rubbish experiences. Pretty much everyone I know who has been to a hospital comes out annoyed by the staff.
You're right. That idiot Brown, he fecked the entire planet.
No need to act like that, I didn't say he fecked the entire planet. Labour were spending more than they were making before the recession started, which is probably why it has been so bad this time round, they were obviously not the only cause but it is amazing how quickly people forget this stuff.
Yep, in fact i'm pretty sure my secondary school became an academy while Labour were in Government.
Im not talking about academies, Im talking about free schools, which is a tory policy. Academies atleast got extra money to schools in disadvatantaged areas, free schools are way to siphon money to the private sector and for the wealthy to have their kids educated separatly from the rest at the taxpayers expense
I'll take the results of a natiowide survey as a better indicator of satisfaction then your experience
I don't think academies are all that bad an idea, to be honest. There's no problem with taking things away from local councils and giving headmasters more power. It's interesting to see people basically defend Labour to the point that they forget that the evil policies thought up by the Conservative party were actually theirs in the first place.
It wasn't a 'cause' at all. Spain was in budget surplus before the crash, as was Ireland, they've both been screwed even worse than us.
It hasn't helped, and some counter-cyclical restraint would have been wise. But it's ridiculous to judge their entire economic record over thirteen years by a catastrophe in the final year that was largely caused by multinational banks and affected the whole world. Especially as Brown and Darling were instrumental in expediting QE, bailout and stimulus across Europe, which prevented a total meltdown.
Also, I refer the hon. lady/gent to the reply I gave a few moments ago:
Tony Blair sent his kids to a school nowhere near his constituency, using this very loophole. No mention of that whatsoever.
What was disastrous about Labour's handling of the economy?
Obviously Labour cannot be blamed for the global financial crisis, so presumably you're blaming the previous Labour government on two fronts; 1.) For failing to act appropriately once it hit and/or 2.) For failing to prepare for a recession by running a budget deficit.
1. Labour's reaction to the crisis, in particular the swift bailing out of banks, won Gordon Brown international acclaim, while the Tories were ridiculed for opposing Labour's bailouts in the wake of Bush disastrous decision not to bail out Lehman.
2. Newsflash, had the Tories got into power in 2005, they would have been running a deficit too. They promised to stick to Labour's spending commitments. Labour actually reduced the deficit left behind by the previous Tory government in between 1998 and 2008.
I wouldn't, i've never met anyone who has had a trouble free experience in a hospital
and as I've said before, usually the complaints are about those staff who apparently work oh so hard.I wasn't talking about acadamies, you've just decided to muddy the waters, I object to free schools. Further, how Gove has expanded the academy program makes no sense. They were schools in shitty areas that got extra funding and independance, now any school can become independant but the funding does not follow, so whats the point?
I wouldn't, i've never met anyone who has had a trouble free experience in a hospital
You don't reckon doctors and nurses work hard?
I wouldn't, i've never met anyone who has had a trouble free experience in a hospital
I never said people were 100% satisfied, don't know why you think I'm arguing that people are
You're literally just quoting what Labour say. 'Global Financial Crisis' is one of their favourite lines to bail them out of any criticism whatsoever.
No-one is claiming that they were completely at fault for what happened across the globe, but if we're being honest, things got out of control under the Labour government, and inevitably we got ourselves in deeper trouble than we would have been if the country had been run a little more cautiously.
Labour do not have a good economic record, however you try to twist it. You do have to ask the question to why they weren't re-elected in the first place. Obviously the general public didn't have great faith in their ability either.
Bit of a difference gaming the system to get your kids into a good state school where anyone can go to having the state fund a school just for you and your mates kids
and if you'll remember back to the last page my whole argument is that there is no difference between the two, so there is no point acting as if i'm sticking up for conservatives
The public liked the spending so the Tories said they will match it to get votes, the two parties change policies all the time to get votes, there is no real strong stance from either, hence why I said that there is no difference. Just look at the beginning of this current term, people didn't want cuts so Labour said that they will not cut, now people are saying we probably do need some cuts but less than what is currently happening, Labour now want to make cuts that aren't as extreme as the Tories.
It's like fecking BBC phone in tv show
Labours economis record was good enough that even in the midst of the worse financial crisis since the 30s the Tories couldn't get a majority
'Global Financial Crisis' is not a line thought up by a Labour spin doctor...it's the term used worldwide to describe the crisis. Because that's exactly what it was, a financial crisis that was global in nature.
You can't criticise Labour's handling of the economy from a Conservative standpoint if you accept that the Conservatives would have done little different. You might as well just criticise mainstream political parties.
The point I'm trying to make is that on this issue the two parties are basically the same, hence the rather meek response from Miliband(although that's indicative of him).
and if you'll remember back to the last page my whole argument is that there is no difference between the two, so there is no point acting as if i'm sticking up for conservatives
The public liked the spending so the Tories said they will match it to get votes, the two parties change policies all the time to get votes, there is no real strong stance from either, hence why I said that there is no difference. Just look at the beginning of this current term, people didn't want cuts so Labour said that they will not cut, now people are saying we probably do need some cuts but less than what is currently happening, Labour now want to make cuts that aren't as extreme as the Tories.
It's like fecking BBC phone in tv show
Labour always said they'd cut, just less the the tories, they didn't change policy to match the tories
I reckon they do, but I don't reckon they deserve the adulation that they get, especially nurses.
They are not, free schools are a massive polciy difference
No they did not. They started off saying that they were against almost all cuts, fair enough they admitted they were going to have to cut spending to an extent but their policies clearly change with the public opinion. Just as the Tories policies changed before the election to fit in with popular opinion.
No, Alistair Darling laid out a plan for cuts pre the election, but he took the sensible view that doing so in the middle of a fragile recovery would be a disaster, so at a slower pace then the tories. He was right
You have a fair point here - it's difficult to say how much it would have been different on this particular occasion. Generally speaking though, I find the Tories to be much more competent and trust-worthy on economic matters, based on history.
That's a convenient way of looking at it
What's happened to Brian? He was naive and blindly followed party orders but he was also bloody good at what he did. I miss the cnut.
What does history have to do with anything? It's a completely different party these days
and if you'll remember back to the last page my whole argument is that there is no difference between the two, so there is no point acting as if i'm sticking up for conservatives
The public liked the spending so the Tories said they will match it to get votes, the two parties change policies all the time to get votes, there is no real strong stance from either, hence why I said that there is no difference.
Well, you characterised the parties as free-spending Labour and cut-happy Tories. So in fact you'd moved on by then from claiming they were the same to claiming they were different.
They're-all-as-bad-as-each-otherism is lazy and generally false. A bit like anecdotal evidence about hospitals.
Their economic record was good enough to win three terms. The reality is that they were beneficiaries of general global growth and then victims of a global catastrophe. Spending was restrained for a term and a half and then got somewhat looser. Their biggest achievement was probably their first, giving independence to the BoE. Their biggest cock-up was probably Brown's gold sell-off. They didn't do anything brilliant, but they managed the economy competently, which is all you can really ask.
As to why they lost: parties rarely win four elections on the bounce, people get sick of them, Brown by that stage wasn't really electable, and then the global economy crashed. Meanwhile, the Tories had sorted themselves out enough to be electable, well almost. The things that polled badly were the wars, the 50p tax thing, and Brown's personality. Not the economy.