Bolitics The New Condem Government

[markavfc40]

I don't think anyone actually likes them, it's just that some feel that they're more competent than the obvious alternatives.

 

Labour clearly have many faults but compared to the Tories they are saints.

 

I see the highest priority of Government to look after those most needy and vulnerable in society be it the poorest, the sick, disabled people etc. With that in mind I think it is a given that the NHS would be in safer hands under Labour. The same with state Education. Social care has been decimated under this mob as a result of huge cuts in local Government funding. This has had a massive impact on those most vulnerable amongst us and has put an inevitable extra huge strain onto the NHS. They have tried to brainwash people by taking every opportunity to stigmatise many of the public services  and this has been disgraceful.

 

The Tories used the deficit, a deficit they have hardly made an impact on by the way, to justify making the huge cuts they have made and continue to make in public services. Truth is though they would have made the cuts anyway. They have all been ideological cuts and they have taken great pleasure in making them.

 

I was 17 in 1991 when the Tories last won an election. I have to be honest I had heard plenty of what an evil mob they were but having now witnessed it as an adult I can see why come 2015 they won't have won an election in 24 years. Given the disgraceful, vindictive and shambolic way they have governed this country along with the lap dog lib dems it will be many, many years before they again see power.

Edited September 26, 2013 by markavfc40

[colhint]

why would you think its a given that the NHS  would be safer under Labour, given that the 2 biggest acts of privatisation in the last 30 years has been the PFI of hospitals and privatising dentistry?

 

And hasn't Ed balls constantly said he would have made cuts?

[tonyh29]

 they won't have won an election in 24 years.

 

they won an election in 2010 , they just didn't win by a big enough margin

[thetrees]

Thank the good Lord for a free press.  Without them, we'd never know of Red Ed's secret plan to seize land from under the nose of the great British public and throw up vile shanty towns on it.

 

 

 

That would be, er, the land which has been bought by speculators for housing development, given planning permission, but not built on because they're waiting to see if they can make more money by sitting on their arses for a few more years in the hope of either a house price bubble, or yet more Osborne giveaways to his rich mates.

 

It is but a short step from this innocuous sounding measure to the Gulag.

That would be, er, the Labour Party who, when in Government, encouraged personal borrowing on a massive scale, to prop up their "no more boom and bust" economy, thus pushing private individuals into negative equity and killing the housing market stone dead.

 

But developers should spend money building homes that people cannot afford to buy as they can't muster a deposit 120% mortgages are things of the past.

 

Perhaps a future Labour Government could order Stalinist tower blocks to be built by these nasty developers and then take them over and give them as housing for the needy.

[thetrees]

 

I don't think anyone actually likes them, it's just that some feel that they're more competent than the obvious alternatives.

 

Labour clearly have many faults but compared to the Tories they are saints.

 

I see the highest priority of Government to look after those most needy and vulnerable in society be it the poorest, the sick, disabled people etc. With that in mind I think it is a given that the NHS would be in safer hands under Labour. The same with state Education. Social care has been decimated under this mob as a result of huge cuts in local Government funding. This has had a massive impact on those most vulnerable amongst us and has put an inevitable extra huge strain onto the NHS. They have tried to brainwash people by taking every opportunity to stigmatise many of the public services  and this has been disgraceful.

 

The Tories used the deficit, a deficit they have hardly made an impact on by the way, to justify making the huge cuts they have made and continue to make in public services. Truth is though they would have made the cuts anyway. They have all been ideological cuts and they have taken great pleasure in making them.

 

I was 17 in 1991 when the Tories last won an election. I have to be honest I had heard plenty of what an evil mob they were but having now witnessed it as an adult I can see why come 2015 they won't have won an election in 24 years. Given the disgraceful, vindictive and shambolic way they have governed this country along with the lap dog lib dems it will be many, many years before they again see power.

 

I would suggest that the highest priority of Government is to ensure that they get the finances right in order to look after the most vulnerable in our society.

The health service is certainly in better hands under Labour - they virtually bust our economy with the massive spending on it during their tenure, which is borne out by how long it is taking the present government to bring the deficit down.

 

Things can be spun so many different ways but the truth is, we (including me) don't like this Tory government, but we can't afford another Labour government.

[drat01]

That'll be two letters.  Honestly, the educational standards in this country have gone right down the pan!

This country? You don't live in the UK so I am assuming you mean the IOM 

[drat01]

 

Laughing out loud at the quite feeble attempts by the right (and in some cases far right) supporters on VT to somehow link wealth and social conscience as being mutually exclusive. Also the quite weak and pathetic attempts to try and discredit Milliband with references to his father.

 

Honestly if you did not know better you would think that certain people are getting somewhat desperate 

 

Who is it that you think is "far right" on here?

 

Oh Martin - I am sure that we don't need to disturb Miss Marple to identify those people 

[drat01]

why would you think its a given that the NHS  would be safer under Labour, given that the 2 biggest acts of privatisation in the last 30 years has been the PFI of hospitals and privatising dentistry?

 

And hasn't Ed balls constantly said he would have made cuts?

At least get some facts right. It's interesting that I think you, and I know that quite a few Tory voters on here have stated in the past that "Labour would not have made cuts" - which was proven to be wrong. So are you now acknowledging that this "fact" can be put to be completely? In respect to the cuts that were proposed, then I have never seen any evidence of what you are claiming here that Balls said he would have made teh same cuts as the Tories have inflicted, care to share where it was declared as policy or even as a personal statement from Balls? 

 

Maybe if the acknowledgement was that cuts were certainly needed but in what areas at what levels and at what speeds then we can really see what differences there were

[drat01]

 

 they won't have won an election in 24 years.

 

they won an election in 2010 , they just didn't win by a big enough margin

 

Ahhh so you have changed your tune now on what is classed as an election victory. I certainly remember you saying before that you supported people like Boris etc and his definition on "winning votes" 

[drat01]

 

Thank the good Lord for a free press.  Without them, we'd never know of Red Ed's secret plan to seize land from under the nose of the great British public and throw up vile shanty towns on it.

 

 

 

That would be, er, the land which has been bought by speculators for housing development, given planning permission, but not built on because they're waiting to see if they can make more money by sitting on their arses for a few more years in the hope of either a house price bubble, or yet more Osborne giveaways to his rich mates.

 

It is but a short step from this innocuous sounding measure to the Gulag.

That would be, er, the Labour Party who, when in Government, encouraged personal borrowing on a massive scale, to prop up their "no more boom and bust" economy, thus pushing private individuals into negative equity and killing the housing market stone dead.

 

But developers should spend money building homes that people cannot afford to buy as they can't muster a deposit 120% mortgages are things of the past.

 

Perhaps a future Labour Government could order Stalinist tower blocks to be built by these nasty developers and then take them over and give them as housing for the needy.

 

Oh mate I expected better from you, one of the more reasonable of the "right wingers" on VT. I suppose spending - that which the Tory party moaned was not high enough - was just an isolated UK thing by Labour? Maybe none of the free world economic things that I know the Tory party are fighting hard to keep "in house" were nothing that can be considered? I see you have purchased the Tory phrase book of things that must be used in the run up to the election using phrases like "Stalinist" - it really does defeat any sort of credibility in your argument, IMO 

[drat01]

 

 

I don't think anyone actually likes them, it's just that some feel that they're more competent than the obvious alternatives.

 

Labour clearly have many faults but compared to the Tories they are saints.

 

I see the highest priority of Government to look after those most needy and vulnerable in society be it the poorest, the sick, disabled people etc. With that in mind I think it is a given that the NHS would be in safer hands under Labour. The same with state Education. Social care has been decimated under this mob as a result of huge cuts in local Government funding. This has had a massive impact on those most vulnerable amongst us and has put an inevitable extra huge strain onto the NHS. They have tried to brainwash people by taking every opportunity to stigmatise many of the public services  and this has been disgraceful.

 

The Tories used the deficit, a deficit they have hardly made an impact on by the way, to justify making the huge cuts they have made and continue to make in public services. Truth is though they would have made the cuts anyway. They have all been ideological cuts and they have taken great pleasure in making them.

 

I was 17 in 1991 when the Tories last won an election. I have to be honest I had heard plenty of what an evil mob they were but having now witnessed it as an adult I can see why come 2015 they won't have won an election in 24 years. Given the disgraceful, vindictive and shambolic way they have governed this country along with the lap dog lib dems it will be many, many years before they again see power.

 

I would suggest that the highest priority of Government is to ensure that they get the finances right in order to look after the most vulnerable in our society.

The health service is certainly in better hands under Labour - they virtually bust our economy with the massive spending on it during their tenure, which is borne out by how long it is taking the present government to bring the deficit down.

 

Things can be spun so many different ways but the truth is, we (including me) don't like this Tory government, but we can't afford another Labour government.

 

You see your phrase shows a lot of what makes people with social conscience not want to vote Tory. The highest priority is finances? Using the disbandment of the  NHS as some sort of argument for cuts and justification for improving the wealth of, lets be honest a very small majority is somewhat of a sick policy IMO

[peterms]

That would be, er, the Labour Party who, when in Government, encouraged personal borrowing on a massive scale, to prop up their "no more boom and bust" economy, thus pushing private individuals into negative equity and killing the housing market stone dead.

 

But developers should spend money building homes that people cannot afford to buy as they can't muster a deposit 120% mortgages are things of the past.

 

Perhaps a future Labour Government could order Stalinist tower blocks to be built by these nasty developers and then take them over and give them as housing for the needy.

It's amusing that you try to place responsibility for the growth of personal debt on the last Labour government.  Even within the UK, you need to look a little broader, starting with the big bang deregulation of the city.  You should also recognise that globally, personal debt grew very significantly over the last 20 years or so.  That alone should give you a clue that it's not the result of the economic policies of one government.

 

You might look at it in a systems way.  If capitalism depends on continued growth of consumption (I suppose that's uncontentious?) and if people are spending pretty much all they earn, then how is further consumption growth to be made possible?  Through personal debt.  It's inherent in the system. 

 

But of course escalating personal debt is unsustainable, so at some point there's a crisis.  At that point, in times past many debts would have been wiped out.  What we see today is an attempt to socialise the debts, make the state pick it up to protect the asset holders.  The state's role has not been so much pushing people to take on more debt, as you suggest, but rather protecting creditors from the consequences of their irresponsible lending.  In that respect, the last Labour government, like the current Tory government and all sorts of governments of all sorts of countries, have certainly been complicit in making things worse.

 

As for homes, the main reason they are so unaffordable is because of a deliberately created mismatch of supply and demand.  Developers are part of that, choking back supply where they think that doing so will allow higher profits from building less, like every supplier of every good throughout history, where they think they are in a position to influence the market either individually or through a cartel.  Governments play a big part, by choking off the supply of available cheap housing (the 1979-97 Tory government did a great deal on this).

 

And tower blocks Stalinist?  You might want to find out about the way the housing subsidy system was altered in the 50's to promote high-rise, think about who benefitted from that (firms like McAlpine and Taylor Woodrow, large donors to the Tory party; firms like Bovis, which Keith Joseph was the heir to, and which later employed Dame Evelyn Sharp, the permanent secretary at the department of housing which changed the subsidy in such a way as to benefit her later employers).  Patrick Dunleavy is informative on all that.  Individual tories like Joseph and Geoffrey Rippon were directly connected to the firms which made a killing out of high-rise; many other tories through family connections, directorships and shareholdings; and the tory party as a whole through bungs.  It would be as well to know a bit about this before chucking around cheap and inaccurate party-political jibes.

[colhint]

I was purely replying to the phrase Tory cuts. I merely pointed out that Balls has said all along that he would make cuts. I went to google it and found about 6 pages about it. Take anyone you like there are plenty there. The only thing he hasn't really said is what and how much.

 

 As for disbandment of the NHS, you keep saying it but nobody has privatised it more than Labour

[peterms]

The health service is certainly in better hands under Labour - they virtually bust our economy with the massive spending on it during their tenure, which is borne out by how long it is taking the present government to bring the deficit down.

That's just so wrong that I can't believe you've read anything about the causes of the financial crash that didn't come out of tory central office or the rags which reprint its press releases, unless you're just on a windup.  Do you really believe that the global financial crisis was the result of the UK government's spending on the HNS or anything else?  Really?

 

 

[drat01]

I was purely replying to the phrase Tory cuts. I merely pointed out that Balls has said all along that he would make cuts. I went to google it and found about 6 pages about it. Take anyone you like there are plenty there. The only thing he hasn't really said is what and how much.

 

 As for disbandment of the NHS, you keep saying it but nobody has privatised it more than Labour

That is not what you wrote though is it?

 

I am genuinely happy that a Tory supporter has acknowledged the myth re Labour and cuts can now be banished to the bin, glad that has now gone away.

 

re the disbandment of the NHS if you don't think that this Gvmt is in the process of doing that I would love to hear why you think the statement is wrong (and contradict many many in the profession itself). 

[colhint]

How can you call it a myth. Ed balls has said repeatedly he will make cuts. Only this week he said he will make cuts.

 

As for the  NHS,  I can't think of anything more Disbanding than selling the hospitals and privatising dentistry.

 

Its the normal Labour modus operandi though, 

 

sell of the Hospitals then say the Tories can't be trusted with the NHS

 

Or put 11% green tax on energy bills then blame those nasty companies for charging too much

[drat01]

Eh? You are not making sense now. For a long time on here and many other forums we have heard from Tory supporters claiming that Labour would "spend" more etc and there would not have been any cuts. This despite the manifesto saying there would have been and credited reports from Milliband, Balls etc that there would have been, but not with the ferocity, ideologically motivated as the Tory ones have been. You are now acknowledging that the myth was just that - or are you saying now the myth is true? It's getting somewhat confusing as to what you are saying 

 

I see you can't, won't defend the Tory NHS privatisations, just resorting to the old "ahh but L...." argument. OK fair enough, if you wont or can't then so be it, but it somewhat defeats your argument straight away. 

 

So a question re Energy are you (as a Tory?) happy with the energy industry and what it's excessive profits are having as an impact on what are basically essential services? 

[colhint]

I'm sure you don't read my posts. 

 

Initially I responded to the post which stated the same old Savage Tory cuts. I never said anything about Labour not making cuts, I don' t think I ever have. I was pointing out to the poster that whoever won the 2010 election would have made cuts. Labour would have made different idealogical cuts. It appears to me that you are confusing my posts with others.

 

So as for the Energy question, I  realise  I cant have free energy as much as I would like. I also know that we import more and more energy, so the price of that is beyond Red Eds cluthes,  I also know about 11.5% of the bill is down to the Last Labour government. If people want green taxes on energy bills they have to be paid for. I just think its hypocritcal to blame the companies when he introduced the biggest hike of all. Furthermore this was tried in Argentina but led to power cuts.  I think I'm  pragmatic enough to realise  if the choice  is if what we pay now, which I think is below average for Europe, or power outages, then I'll take what we pay now

 

[thetrees]

Thank the good Lord for a free press.  Without them, we'd never know of Red Ed's secret plan to seize land from under the nose of the great British public and throw up vile shanty towns on it.

 

 

 

That would be, er, the land which has been bought by speculators for housing development, given planning permission, but not built on because they're waiting to see if they can make more money by sitting on their arses for a few more years in the hope of either a house price bubble, or yet more Osborne giveaways to his rich mates.

 

It is but a short step from this innocuous sounding measure to the Gulag.

That would be, er, the Labour Party who, when in Government, encouraged personal borrowing on a massive scale, to prop up their "no more boom and bust" economy, thus pushing private individuals into negative equity and killing the housing market stone dead.

 

But developers should spend money building homes that people cannot afford to buy as they can't muster a deposit 120% mortgages are things of the past.

 

Perhaps a future Labour Government could order Stalinist tower blocks to be built by these nasty developers and then take them over and give them as housing for the needy.

Oh mate I expected better from you, one of the more reasonable of the "right wingers" on VT. I suppose spending - that which the Tory party moaned was not high enough - was just an isolated UK thing by Labour? Maybe none of the free world economic things that I know the Tory party are fighting hard to keep "in house" were nothing that can be considered? I see you have purchased the Tory phrase book of things that must be used in the run up to the election using phrases like "Stalinist" - it really does defeat any sort of credibility in your argument, IMO

Flattery will get you everywhere

'Stalinist'. Nah, it's just that I was in Eastern Europe a couple of weeks ago and drove past a few crumbling tower blocks.

Are we in the run up to an election?

[thetrees]

I don't think anyone actually likes them, it's just that some feel that they're more competent than the obvious alternatives.

 

Labour clearly have many faults but compared to the Tories they are saints.

 

I see the highest priority of Government to look after those most needy and vulnerable in society be it the poorest, the sick, disabled people etc. With that in mind I think it is a given that the NHS would be in safer hands under Labour. The same with state Education. Social care has been decimated under this mob as a result of huge cuts in local Government funding. This has had a massive impact on those most vulnerable amongst us and has put an inevitable extra huge strain onto the NHS. They have tried to brainwash people by taking every opportunity to stigmatise many of the public services  and this has been disgraceful.

 

The Tories used the deficit, a deficit they have hardly made an impact on by the way, to justify making the huge cuts they have made and continue to make in public services. Truth is though they would have made the cuts anyway. They have all been ideological cuts and they have taken great pleasure in making them.

 

I was 17 in 1991 when the Tories last won an election. I have to be honest I had heard plenty of what an evil mob they were but having now witnessed it as an adult I can see why come 2015 they won't have won an election in 24 years. Given the disgraceful, vindictive and shambolic way they have governed this country along with the lap dog lib dems it will be many, many years before they again see power.

I would suggest that the highest priority of Government is to ensure that they get the finances right in order to look after the most vulnerable in our society.

The health service is certainly in better hands under Labour - they virtually bust our economy with the massive spending on it during their tenure, which is borne out by how long it is taking the present government to bring the deficit down.

 

Things can be spun so many different ways but the truth is, we (including me) don't like this Tory government, but we can't afford another Labour government.

You see your phrase shows a lot of what makes people with social conscience not want to vote Tory. The highest priority is finances? Using the disbandment of the  NHS as some sort of argument for cuts and justification for improving the wealth of, lets be honest a very small majority is somewhat of a sick policy IMO

You are placing a deliberate misinterpretation on my 'highest priority'. If I want to feed, clothe and generally care for my family, then my priority is to ensure that I go out and earn some money in order to do so. What money I earn then dictates what I can do with it.

A government is exactly the same, and if they don't have the money, they can't spend it, so the priority must be to first get the finance in place, and then spend it appropriately.

I also don't recall ever calling for the disbandment of the NHS, because that is the last thing that I would do.