Do you think Labour DESERVES to get a majority in 2015?

(84 Posts)
Isitmebut Wed 09-Apr-14 12:24:23

Bearing in mind Labour’s record in power, the salient features shown below; having inherited the best decade in 100-years to make important social changes, make provisions for pensioners, build enough homes and a sustainable economic model – what use is ‘a high tax and spend’ party, during a fragile global recovery and an approx £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 trillion) of Nation Debt????

Facts; Labour were the most spun media controlled and corrupt administration in living memory with ‘Blairs Labour cash for Lordships’ investigated by the police, Brown’s lowering of Capital Gains Tax to as low as 10% to attract party money from the City and MP expenses totally out of hand on THEIR watch and Labour’s Parliament Speaker Michael Martin running the show, now a peer for his ‘services’ to MP’s expenses.

Pro EU without trusting the people to vote… pro open door immigration from 2004 for personal gain AND without increasing home building to make room …with 580,000 under 25-year olds here already unemployed... pro flat lining State Education rather than raise standards…pro needless laws/police State with more legislation passed in their 13-years than the previous 100-years… pro Human Rights Act in 1998 causing so many ‘rights’ for criminals/terrorists problems.

Pro MRSA/C.Diff killer germ infested NHS hospitals hiring more managers than nurses.. pro saddling hospitals and schools with 25-year plus Private Finance Initiative debts….pro 24-hour drinking, gambling and declassifying drugs….pro expensive quangos costing over £70 bil a year to run.. pro expensive to run local government (with non jobs) leading to Council Tax hikes up 110% on their watch..

Pro raiding private personal pensions from 1998, including private sector companies to near final salary extinction...pro screwing state pensioners with derisory annual State pension e.g. 75p in 2000….pro raising the lower band tax rate to screw the poor in 2007…pro sale of 40% of UK gold reserves under $300 an ounce versus $1.900 high…..pro relaxation of banking regulation to dangerous levels pre financial crash..…pro sending 1 million of our manufacturing jobs elsewhere by 2005 BEFORE the crash

Pro lying to go to war and without equipping soldiers with basic kit and helicopters... ….pro nuclear energy to stop lights going off in 2015, but didn’t get around to building any.…pro defence/Trident, who knows, let someone else get around to it….and leaving us less domestic food production secure than in 1997.

With a balanced budget by 2002 having adopted 1997 Tory spending plans, pro unbalanced economy = ANNUAL budget deficit of £157 bil a year in 2010 and national debt of £1.5 trillion by 2015 needing unpopular austerity, or go the way of bankrupt Greece…….pro equality but left power in 2010 with more inequality than in 1997.

And finally as mentioned in their 2010 manifesto, were planning MORE fat government, MORE national debt, LESS inefficiency cuts and INCREASED taxes to all to pay for their incompetence (that would kill any economic growth), they cynically never got around to DETAILING in any detail to fool their voters – and it clearly has.

I don't think any of the main parties deserve a majority to be honest. They are all much of the same - posh idiots who have not set foot into the real world.

Isitmebut Wed 09-Apr-14 12:46:14

It's no time for experiments, with political parties that flip flop on their domestic policies every other year, and have no one thats even visited Westminster, never mind worked in parliament, sat in cabinet or have experience in ministries - and we ain't got 5-years to teach them.

Isitmebut Wed 09-Apr-14 14:58:03

Are there no Labour supporters micro criticising the 'Conservative Scum' for trying to fix the majority of those macro Labour policies by design, going to say on THAT record, Labour deserve to get back in?

Maybe they will just prior to 2015, after all 'the heavily lifting' has been done, they are brave enough to publish THEIR policies; as any opportunist political party can 'oppose' and criticise everything the coalition does, without their own 2010 policies.

ttosca Wed 09-Apr-14 19:17:30

No time for experiments! Vote for the party which has consistently proven will f**k you in the arse!

VOTE TORY SCUM!

Isitmebut Wed 09-Apr-14 20:26:51

Read the list above Cochise, I can't think of any government that knowingly, through their own policies (in 'good times'), have done more move damage to 'the people' they STILL say they represent.

Isitmebut Fri 18-Apr-14 00:28:58

What if Labour HAD won the 2010 general election and were re-elected to follow their ‘more’ of the same’ policies of the Big State, less cuts, more spending, and more tax rises on an anti austerity platform?

If you listen to Labour, in 2010 spending nearly £160 billion more than the UK earned did NOT falsely inflate our GDP figure, even though Government Spending and Consumption are major components of GDP and there was sod all else ‘growing’ at the time, accept unemployment.

This question is quite relevant as a Labour government is likely to form the next government in 2015 and could follow a similar economic model, so thankfully WE DO KNOW, as socialist France was following a similar strategy to Labour’s - and despite France having a much better BALANCED economy and a much smaller annual budget deficit than the UK’s – France has had to reverse those polices and follow a similar strategy as Osbourne’s Plan A..

But even after veering away from the anti austerity plan a year or so ago, France had 0.3% GDP in 2013 and expect 1.0% in 2014, whereas the UK had 1.3% GDP growth in 2013 and expect over 2.7% growth in 2014 - and now has RECORD unemployment at 11% (3.3 million claiming) having gone UP substantially in 2013 as the UK’s was slowly trending down and is now at 6.9% and a 5-year low.

The following article sums up the unsustainable similarity in socialist economic theories of Miliband and France’s Hollande and explains how France now has light at the end of their economic tunnel – but is seen to betray a socialist model, even though it was following the road to Greece.

“How Francois Hollande changed but Ed Miliband stayed the same.”
www.trendingcentral.com/francois-hollande-changed-ed-miliband-stayed/

“Back in the summer of 2012, Ed Miliband was exalting his new hero across the channel, French president François Hollande. The Labour leader could not have been more generous in his praise for his opposite number in the French Socialist Party:”

Miliband: “What President Hollande is seeking to do in France and what he is seeking to do in leading the debate in Europe is find that different way forward. We are in agreement in seeking that new way that needs to be found and I think can be found.”

“The man Miliband pledged an ideological allegiance to was the François Hollande of old. Two years ago the new French president was naively idealistic; stubborn in his belief that big government, high spending, more borrowing and punitive taxes on the rich was the path to economic recovery. He was a nice man, but meek, bookish, a nerd. It is not difficult to see why Miliband liked the idea of emulating the politician who was, essentially, a baguette-brandishing Ed.”

“In the two years that followed Hollande changed, but Miliband didn’t. France was brought almost to its knees as unemployment hit a 16-year high and Hollande’s approval rating reached a record low for a French president. As the rest of western Europe slowly began to recover, it was the one country that had chosen a socialist route that stagnated. Ferraris queued up at the French-Swiss border as wealth creators tried to flee their nation’s new debilitating tax rates.”

“And so, at the beginning of this year, Hollande changed. Out with the old failing mantra of the state, in with significant cuts to public spending. Out with the old tax the successful regardless of what it does to the economy dogma, in with generous tax cuts to businesses. No longer does Hollande want to be called a ‘socialist’; he is now a pragmatic ‘social democrat’. His critics on the left call it a ‘lurch to the right’.”

“Presented with first-hand evidence of how such policies have ruined a neighbouring country’s economy, Miliband is telling voters that he will do exactly the same thing if they give him a chance. The very same policies undertaken by the old Hollande, which the new Hollande now rejects, are being embraced with vigour by Labour’s leader back home.”

“Unlike Hollande, Miliband is not going to waver from his dogmatic ideals no matter the consequences for his country. Unlike Hollande, Miliband will never be pictured in a motorcycle helmet on the front page of a tabloid with a bodyguard delivering him and his mistress a bacon sarnie. If he (Miliband) wins in 2015, we only have to look across the channel to see what will happen. Don’t say you weren’t warned.”

In conclusion this is proof a Labour 5-year UK anti austerity programme would have been an economic and social disaster, resulting in much higher interest rates to satisfy the UK's institutional deficit/debt funders and a significantly higher National Debt to pass on to our grandchildren than the likely £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 trillion) in 2015.

Custardo Fri 18-Apr-14 00:43:17

i have never known a government as ruthless as this on the poor of this country whilst living like rich swine giving jobs to their mates and party doners and inventing policy to line their pockets

MrJollyLivesNextDoor Fri 18-Apr-14 00:53:46

I'm guessing Labour can't rely on your vote OP grin

They will bloody well be getting mine smile

Custardo Fri 18-Apr-14 00:55:47

and mine

ttosca Fri 18-Apr-14 12:14:33

Definitely not. Sorry, they've lost their way.

Whilst I'm willing to concede they would be 'less cuntish' than the Tories (as quipped on another thread), they are still a neo-liberal business party.

A vote for any of the mainstream parties is a vote for a coninuation of the nutjob crazy casino Capitalism we've had for the past 30 years.

phoebeflangey Fri 18-Apr-14 12:24:16

I think the Conservatives managed to swoop in just as the global finance crisis hit and were able to make it all labours fault. Granted they made some mistakes, but not every one that the Tories claim. I stupidly voted Lib Dem last time (what a waste that was!) having been Labour all my life. I will be returning to Labour in 2015.

StickEm Fri 18-Apr-14 12:26:15

I'm voting labour.

TribbleWithoutATardis Fri 18-Apr-14 12:37:53

Depends on their policies, but I won't be voting lib dem or conservatives. They both can do a running jump as far as I'm concerned.

None of them deserves to win. That is the problem.

I don't want more of the same that any of them have previously dished up. I have no idea how I will vote but the idea of Labour getting back in fills me with as much dread as the Tories staying in.

I might have to start my own party.confused

Isitmebut Fri 09-May-14 16:16:34

Regarding the title of this thread, as far as I can make out on the responses so far, NO ONE can look at Labour’s list of policies on the opening post and say Labour DESERVES to be in government (Westminster or Local) but due to the Coalitions efforts once INHERITING the fallout from those policies on a ‘cause and effect’ basis, most would vote Labour back in anyway.

Isitmebut but how ideologically ‘tribal’ can you get, as if any party I voted for screwed the indigenous multi-ethnic electorate so much, especially the aspirations of the poor/homeless/unemployed - by senselessly INCREASING NON EU immigration to double that of EU citizens, just when opening the door to POTENTIALLY 475 million EU citizens (and not know how many were coming) – I’d never vote for them again.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Do you really not see the non racist but economic and social correlation BETWEEN Labour’s policies during their administration, and any hardship on the masses now, having had 2.5 million new joint non and EU citizens arrive, who both found work and somewhere to live?

Blaming the Conservative led coalition for trying to get the UK’s finances under control is understandable to a point, as Brown’s Labour administration REFUSED to detail their ‘cut less, spend and tax more’ policies. But that administration had a few honest, competent Ministers within back then, who were prepared to come clean on the extent of the problem – rather than adopt the Mr Micawber wish and a prayer of ‘something will turn up’ so keep spending money on an inefficient, fat, State.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

But once Labour were shown to be spectacularly wrong and no imminent General Election, they came clean on both the extent of the financial problem and what EVENTUALLY they would have to have done about it, probably not before the UK needed an IMF bail-out as in 1976.

“Labour to substantially cut benefits bill if it wins power in 2015”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/21/labour-to-cut-benefits-bill-2015

"Labour will cut the benefits bill "quite substantially" and more effectively than the Tories if it wins power in 2015, the shadow work and pensions secretary said on Tuesday."

Unfortunately the truth is that never mind if they DESERVE it, Labour WILL get back in due to the dodgy boundaries; as in 2005 a 35% share of the votes gave Labour a 64-seat majority. In 2010 the Tories won 36% of votes but were 20 seats short of a majority.

And we’ll never know how there annual raising of Council Taxes (to beyond 110% since 1997), raising of National Insurance and Fuel Duty post 2010 (from a budget prior to 2010) and many other taxes to the populous they kept to themselves - would have SOLVED the ‘cost of living’ crisis you get after any recession, never mind the deepest and longest in over 80-years - made worse by the unbalanced UK economy prior to the crash in 2007/8.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2044969--Cost-of-Living-a-cunning-plan

niceguy2 Sat 10-May-14 08:27:04

None of them deserves to win. That is the problem.

I don't want more of the same that any of them have previously dished up. I have no idea how I will vote but the idea of Labour getting back in fills me with as much dread as the Tories staying in.

^ This. You've just summed up most of the electorate's feelings and explained to a large degree the rise of UKIP. Most people aren't inherently racist. But a lot of us (myself included) don't really feel any of the main parties deserve to win and we don't want to really vote for any of them.

teaandthorazine Sat 10-May-14 09:15:31

I have always voted Labour in the past, but this time will be voting Green.

I live in a safe Tory seat anyway (they nearly parachuted Boris into it, that's how blue it is) so unfortunately whomever I vote for, it's pretty much a wasted vote. However...

I want Labour to be an OPPOSITION, which they're not at the moment. And whilst I think one should vote for policies rather than personalities, I can't get behind Ed. So no, on that basis - NOT because of the tl:dr posts that the OP posts so regularly, would just like to make that very clear hmm - on that basis I don't think they deserve to win. I want a Labour Party with some bloody fire in its belly. Won't happen at the moment.

Green policies appeal to me. I loathe the Tories with every fibre of my being and dread the thought of another govt led by them. Labour have lost their fight. UKIP are any thinking person's worst nightmare. So, Green it is.

Isitmebut Sat 17-May-14 16:01:28

Teaandhorazine …. While I’m not sure why if you understood what they inherited why you “loathe” the Tories so much, but I do know that if I had been a Labour Party supporter, it would not come down to Labour Party personalities, as my conscience would never allow me to vote for them again – whether we were in a two main party parliament, where either the Conservatives or Labour Party will always form a new administration, or not.

Looking at Labour’s last 13-year record (in my opening post), for a political party who says that they are so ‘in touch’ with the masses – I shudder to think what more economic and social damage their policies BY DESIGN, could have done – so where is the attraction to them and hatred for those trying to come up with solutions, Labour was too cowardly to try in 2010, thinking of their 2015 vote..

Just 'taking' pensions, that few people think about when they are young, never mind the often derisory annual increases Brown gave State Pensioners, his policies have produced a massive pension inequality between the Public and Private Sector workers, starting back in 1997, that 17-years later, would have severely impacted their ‘cost of living’ whatever pension provisions the Private Sector had – and no doubt PUT UP the cost to the taxpayer of funding Public Sector pensions, Final Salary in particular..

When Labour came to power in 1997, they made three ‘raids’ not in their manifesto; they sold nearly half our gold at a 20-year low price, hiked up Housing Stamp Duty from a flat 1% rate, and took away pensions dividend tax relief, Brown was warned not to do as it might kill Private Sector Company pensions, especially Final Salary..

“The man who stole your old age: How Gordon Brown secretly imposed a ruinous tax that has wrecked the retirements of millions”

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266662/The-man-stole-old-age-How-Gordon-Brown-secretly-imposed-ruinous-tax-wrecked-retirements-millions.html

To-date, according to the OBR that ‘raid’ has saved the UK Exchequer around £118 billion, but the cost to Private Pensions (that back in 1997 were the best funded in Europe), that both lost that tax relief AND accrued performance from the investments, at a modest rate, is over £250 billion. Private Pensions were not just for wealthy people, they were for everyone, especially those working for companies that looked to give THEIR workers a similar pension to most State workers.

- But since 1997, the number of Private Sector workers with a defined benefit pension has collapsed from 5million to 1.7million.

- And in 1997, 34 per cent of staff at Private Sector firms were in a final salary – or defined benefit – scheme. By 2012, this had slumped to just 8 per cent – just one in 12.

In a double-whammy to those that have lost their Final Salary pensions, for those companies managing the liabilities that provide the Public Sector Final Salary schemes (and remembering that Labour hired around 1 million new Public Sector workers in 13-years to around 6.1 million), that same dividend relief raid means it now takes MORE taxpayer funds to GUARANTEE those schemes payouts.

And as the majority of the £1.2 trillion liability (that comes out of annual government budgets when fall due) is unfunded, it is another big ‘Prudence’ Brown expenditure time bomb he left, along with Private Finance Initiative Schemes, annually out of NHS and our Education budgets for decades to come.
www.if.org.uk/archives/2031/ons-reveals-full-uk-pension-liabilities

If I understand correctly, the Local Authority pension fund is separate and that is where just over 22% of your Council Tax goes to fund – and this will give you some idea why Council Tax under Labour went up over 110% in 13-years – arguably so much fairer than the Poll Tax, Labour politicians used to march against.lol
“Revealed: Labour's crazy town hall 'non-jobs', including the walking co-ordinator on £32,000-a-year and the roller disco coach.”

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

HermioneWeasley Sat 17-May-14 16:04:32

I'm guessing OP has a paid job as a conservative PR?

None of them deserve to win, but even friends who are paid up Labour Party members shake their head at Ed Miliband. I will probably spoil my ballot paper.

Isitmebut Sat 17-May-14 16:14:22

H.M. ….. well you’d be guessing wrong, as if I was, I would have been tempted to include the Coalitions attempts to redress Labour’s neglect of pensions/pensioners in pursuit of a fat, inefficient and expensive State.

After experiencing 1970’s Labour, I followed New Labour very closely and I was tearing my hair out for 13-years at their total incompetence in ruining what they inherited in 1997.

Now you and others can vote for who you want, but at the end of the day either Labour or the Conservatives will run the country and they will have the choice of records while in power.

longfingernails Sat 17-May-14 17:09:06

Every Labour government in history has brought Britain to the brink of bankruptcy. Of course they don't deserve power.

SteadyEddie Sun 18-May-14 08:24:20

No I don't think they deserve to win.

They are completely rudderless. Both the Ed's are scary in different ways and I don't want to live in a country run by incompetents.

However as a vote for the Tories is a vote for Gove I don't know who to vote for. I will probably vote Liberal again although I will probable be the only one.

dreamingofsun Wed 21-May-14 13:28:41

no. they cannot be trusted with our finances. moreover, constituencies should be made the same size so we don't end up lumbered with a labour gov despite more people voting for another one party.

Chipstick10 Wed 21-May-14 18:37:30

No they don't deserve it

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now