Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

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

83 replies

Isitmebut · 09/04/2014 12:24

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.

OP posts:
MrJollyLivesNextDoor · 18/04/2014 00:53

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

They will bloody well be getting mine Smile

Custardo · 18/04/2014 00:43

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

Isitmebut · 18/04/2014 00:28

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.

OP posts:
Isitmebut · 09/04/2014 20:26

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.

OP posts:
ttosca · 09/04/2014 19:17

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

VOTE TORY SCUM!

Isitmebut · 09/04/2014 14:58

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.

OP posts:
Isitmebut · 09/04/2014 12:46

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.

OP posts:
glenthebattleostrich · 09/04/2014 12:28

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.