Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Mozza said:
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
Click to expand...

Also, since he became shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls (a Keynesian, by modern standards) has devoted a lot of energy to getting across that Osborne should put the brakes on the cuts in response to what's happened to the economy over the past 2 years. It's not so much about policy in 2010, it's about reacting to the conditions in front of us at the moment.

alastair said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that there is a historic perception that the Tories are more economically competent, although Blair and Brown did go a long way in changing that. Labour lost the public's trust, but that's largely down to a hysterical media, much of which was out for Brown's head.
 
Plechazunga said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never said 'they are all as bad as each other' type things, I made a post earlier in which I stated that I feel the best way to vote is by seeing who seems to be the most capable, I would personally choose Gordon Brown over David Cameron for instance, but I don't really care about what Labour claim to stand for, policies are fallible selling points but the people don't change.
 
paceme said:
I wouldn't, i've never met anyone who has had a trouble free experience in a hospital :lol: and as I've said before, usually the complaints are about those staff who apparently work oh so hard.
Click to expand...

Well we've not met, but my experiences of the NHS have been excellent. To imply they don't work hard is insulting to the majority in my view.

As already pointed out though, anecdotal evidence is fairly useless. There are less subjective indicators that are preferable, and these are much more useful for judging the state of the NHS as a whole.
 
I pretty carefully maintained that I was talking about my experience so that it does not become generalization. I just get annoyed at the fact that questioning medical staffs work ethic is like a taboo in this country. You just get people shouting back stuff like 'have you seen the shifts they work!'
 
paceme said:
I never said 'they are all as bad as each other' type things, I made a post earlier in which I stated that I feel the best way to vote is by seeing who seems to be the most capable, I would personally choose Gordon Brown over David Cameron for instance, but I don't really care about what Labour claim to stand for, policies are fallible selling points but the people don't change.
Click to expand...

What does this mean? I actually think individual personalities have a greater influence on policy than many might realise.

Blair's personality had a huge impact on changes to government style and tradition, and at a smaller scale it's visible at Departments. I fully expect our approach to Justice to move to a stricter, traditionally right wing, position now that Grayling is in charge compared to the more liberal Clarke. And that's two members of the same party, let alone a change in administration or a Lib Dem Secretary in office.
 
paceme said:
I pretty carefully maintained that I was talking about my experience so that it does not become generalization.
Click to expand...

Yes, except saying "Not to generalize my experience" and then taking your own anecdotal evidence and projecting it outward to the general population is in fact still generalizing your experience.
 
Agent Red said:
What does this mean? I actually think individual personalities have a greater influence on policy than many might realise.

Blair's personality had a huge impact on changes to government style and tradition, and at a smaller scale it's visible at Departments. I fully expect our approach to Justice to move to a stricter, traditionally right wing, position now that Grayling is in charge compared to the more liberal Clarke. And that's two members of the same party, let alone a change in administration or a Lib Dem Secretary in office.
Click to expand...

You are agreeing with me here :p

I meant that voting because of promises and policies these days is dangerous, but you know what you are getting if your vote is about the person
 
paceme said:
I pretty carefully maintained that I was talking about my experience so that it does not become generalization. I just get annoyed at the fact that questioning medical staffs work ethic is like a taboo in this country. You just get people shouting back stuff like 'have you seen the shifts they work!'
Click to expand...

Your post read very much like a generalisation, although you were only citing your own anecdotal examples.

Sarcastically saying they work 'oh so hard' implies that we are somehow tricked into thinking NHS workers work hard when actually they're all dossing about. That's a slightly different stance to questioning the work ethic of certain areas of the NHS. No large service provider, such as the NHS, will ever be free of bureaucracy or waste, so yes of course there's areas for improvement and work ethic can be questioned, but bundling that into a statement about never having heard of a positive experience and implying they're work shy, that's way off the mark in my view.
 
paceme said:
You are agreeing with me here :p

I meant that voting because of promises and policies these days is dangerous, but you know what you are getting if your vote is about the person
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure what you were saying, that's why I was asking you to clarify, which you've now done.
 
404046_518192541530673_697918678_n.jpg
 
peterstorey said:
Well I still find it depressing that Labour is only maginally less cnutish than the Tories.
Click to expand...

true that, I wish they were more like Old Labour, Tony Benn was on TV the other day, we need more politicians like him in my view, a lot more of em!

that said I might have to squirm somewhat and join Labour Students, Uni im moving to it's only them and the fecking SWP on the Left on campus, had my fill of Leninists at my old Uni
 
1999united2008 said:
true that, I wish they were more like Old Labour, Tony Benn was on TV the other day, we need more politicians like him in my view, a lot more of em!
Click to expand...

Love the old school politicians like Benn, Red Ken (when he was actually still Red), and Kinnock but unfortunately when the Labour party had too many of them they were unelectable.

In this day and age you have to be pretty close to center to stand a chance of winning. The days of far right or far left politics are in the past.
 
mjs020294 said:
Love the old school politicians like Benn, Red Ken (when he was actually still Red), and Kinnock but unfortunately when the Labour party had too many of them they were unelectable.

In this day and age you have to be pretty close to center to stand a chance of winning. The days of far right or far left politics are in the past.
Click to expand...

the centre doesn't exist, it's just the right with mass media propaganda calling it the centre.

the reason Labour were unelectable went far beyond just their political position as well, though the media is so right wing these days that it's true anyone talking about anything even slightly left wing get's treated worse than most criminals by them.
 
First PMQ. 1-0 to Milliband , but his opening question was lame.
 
Is this the matchday thread? :D
 
Labour would be in much better shape if they'd elected his brother and got rid of Ed Balls ages ago. Most Labour supporters and MPs are well aware of this.
 
True enough. Without being facetious, one of Ed's biggest troubles will be gaining the 50/50 voters. He just comes across like a bit of a dweeb and it's affecting the understanding of his policies.
 
alastair said:
True enough. Without being facetious, one of Ed's biggest troubles will be gaining the 50/50 voters. He just comes across like a bit of a dweeb and it's affecting the understanding of his policies.
Click to expand...
I think the days of the empty suits like Cameron and Clegg are drawing to an end. Ed doesn't come across as a glib insurance salesman.
 
There also no point having a Labour government nobody wants to elect. I'm inclined to agree with Al. Any rise in Labour popularity has been done for them by the unpopularity of Clegg & D-Fresh. If Labour had anyone with any charisma or sense of gravitas they'd have seen an 'early days of Obama-esque' surge in support.
 
Plechazunga said:
The reality is that they were beneficiaries of general global growth and then victims of a global catastrophe.
Click to expand...

They lap up the credit for the growth in the noughties, but then wash their hands of any responsibility at all for the financial crisis. This is to be expected, of course - it is politics. But it is also bullshit. So because Brown loves to take credit for everything good that happened pre-2007, I am happy to see him / them blamed for what came after. Even though in my heart I know that the opposite is true: Brown was a lucky chancellor, not a brilliant one, and the financial crisis would have fecked us no matter who was in government.
 
peterstorey said:
In the short term maybe, but there's no point in having a Labour government implementing Tory policies like Blair.
Click to expand...

Come on. New Labour didn't deliver the kind of redistribution we'd like, but they were hardly Tories. Would the Tories have brought in the minimum wage? Civil partnerships? FoI, equality legislation... bills against fox-hunting? Pumped the kind of funding we saw under Labour into education and particularly the NHS? Tories can't stand the NHS... I mean, look at them.

They were centrist on taxation and right-wing on civil liberties. In foreign policy they were criminal, but it's actually unfair on Tories to call Iraq conservative, there's nothing particularly conservative about stupid wars of choice - or even engagements like Kosovo. But he was supporting a foamingly conservative US administration, so alright, chalk that one up. On the positive side they did increase foreign aid.
 
I dont know if I have ever mentioned this on here before. But when I was about 8 or 9 I asked my dad about politics. What he said has always stuck with me, (though he has no recollection of saying it.)

He said voting is like seeing two piles of dogshit in the street and standing there deliberating which one you are going to step in. Back to the "theyre all as bad as each other" argument.

I have never followed his advice (in case you missed it, his advice was not to vote) and have always been much more interested in politics than he is. But I actually think there is a grain of wisdom in there. They may not be all as bad as each other. But a frighteningly large proportion of them are wankers, cowards or just plain inept.
 
Plechazunga said:
Come on. New Labour didn't deliver the kind of redistribution we'd like, but they were hardly Tories. Would the Tories have brought in the minimum wage? Civil partnerships? FoI, equality legislation... bills against fox-hunting? Pumped the kind of funding we saw under Labour into education and particularly the NHS? Tories can't stand the NHS... I mean, look at them.

They were centrist on taxation and right-wing on civil liberties. In foreign policy they were criminal, but it's actually unfair on Tories to call Iraq conservative, there's nothing particularly conservative about stupid wars of choice - or even engagements like Kosovo. But he was supporting a foamingly conservative US administration, so alright, chalk that one up. On the positive side they did increase foreign aid.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you're equating putting loads of funding into something as caring about it more.

Labour threw billions at education and social mobility hasn't improved and the standard of examinations is worse than it ever has been. It costs the government about 90% of what it costs a parent to send their child to a private school to pay for state education for a single pupil yet the level of education is still nowhere near where it should be.

The reason why the Tories are making cuts in areas like the NHS and education is because Labour have spent more than you need to run them effectively and efficiently, not because they hate them.
 
peterstorey said:
I think the days of the empty suits like Cameron and Clegg are drawing to an end. Ed doesn't come across as a glib insurance salesman.
Click to expand...

Ed strikes me as someone who basically is in way above his level. He reminds me of Terri out of The Thick Of It(I don't know if you've seen it, but if you haven't, do). Probably a nice enough chap but not PM material, unlike David or even Andy Burnham who has always come across as a very competent MP.
 
Simon Adabesi said:
I dont know if I have ever mentioned this on here before. But when I was about 8 or 9 I asked my dad about politics. What he said has always stuck with me, (though he has no recollection of saying it.)

He said voting is like seeing two piles of dogshit in the street and standing there deliberating which one you are going to step in. Back to the "theyre all as bad as each other" argument.

I have never followed his advice (in case you missed it, his advice was not to vote) and have always been much more interested in politics than he is. But I actually think there is a grain of wisdom in there. They may not be all as bad as each other. But a frighteningly large proportion of them are wankers, cowards or just plain inept.
Click to expand...

A couple of hundred years ago, life was a steaming pile of shit for people born poor, female, minority etc. Everything was stacked against them, including the law. Since then, we've seen a slow but steady increase in standard of living, human rights and, until this generation, equality. Some of that change was caused by systemic rather than ideological factors - some of the women's rights stuff came via the Great War, for instance. But most of it came as a direct result of political parties being organised that had the enfranchisement and advancement of the poor and marginalised as their basic goals.

At every stage along the way people were faced with the choice of acting politically, or washing their hands of the whole thing because it's a dirty business. If the hand-washers had been in the majority, not much of that would have happened.

So your dad is, no offence, talking a steaming pile of shit.
 
alastair said:
The problem is that you're equating putting loads of funding into something as caring about it more.

Labour threw billions at education and social mobility hasn't improved and the standard of examinations is worse than it ever has been. It costs the government about 90% of what it costs a parent to send their child to a private school to pay for state education for a single pupil yet the level of education is still nowhere near where it should be.

The reason why the Tories are making cuts in areas like the NHS and education is because Labour have spent more than you need to run them effectively and efficiently, not because they hate them.
Click to expand...

Nah, socialised healthcare is... well, socialist. It's anathema to proper Tories like the lot we've got in at the moment. It's also extremely popular so they can't actually get rid of it, but they would if they could. A bit like the situation with Medicare and the Republicans.

The fact that they are 'reforming' it as radically as they are, with no mandate for it and in a coalition government, goes to show how far they'd go if they could. As well as their unbelievable gall.

And yes, to a large extent a government's priorities are reflected in funding. That's one of the key functions of government - distributing tax revenues to particular areas. Where they spend inevitably reflects their ideology. Equitable health and education have always been at the forefront of Labour ideology.

Also, you don't put Jeremy Hunt in charge of something you like.
 
Plechazunga said:
Nah, socialised healthcare is... well, socialist. It's anathema to proper Tories like the lot we've got in at the moment. It's also extremely popular so they can't actually get rid of it, but they would if they could. A bit like the situation with Medicare and the Republicans.

The fact that they are 'reforming' it as radically as they are, with no mandate for it and in a coalition government, goes to show how far they'd go if they could. As well as their unbelievable gall.

And yes, to a large extent a government's priorities are reflected in funding. That's one of the key functions of government - distributing tax revenues to particular areas. Where they spend inevitably reflects their ideology. Equitable health and education have always been at the forefront of Labour ideology.

Also, you don't put Jeremy Hunt in charge of something you like.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on the NHS - it's one traditionally socialist policy I admire and think has the potential to work. I don't particularly agree with a lot of what the Tories are doing there myself, although I do think it could still maintain its level of service after cuts. I don't feel as if it should be excluded from them.

My point on education is that it got worse and worse under Labour as the years ticked by. Yes, putting funding into something might give the impression that you care deeply about it, but it doesn't really matter if you help turn it into a disaster.

It is possible to make cuts in education and still improve the way it is run. Reducing the funds certain schools are given, and in some cases taking schools away from the red-tape of local authority is firstly going to ensure that the schools get their priorities back into shape, and then it'll have the bonus of saving money at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.