Labour, Conservative... Can someone summarise them I am confused!

More reading on the ''privatising public services' subject, for those that care about the truth.

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8779598/Private-Finance-Initiative-where-did-all-go-wrong.html

WE saw all the bad Labour spending, after 2010 under another term for Labour we would have seen the tax rises to pay for it.

The Conservatives are 'the nasty party' as they always have to get the public finances back under control.

'The Conservatives will privatise the NHS' - yet more Labour 'smoke and mirrors', as after their use of the private sector via the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) our public services are already knee deep in the badly negotiated contracts.

“Tony Blair has defended the spread of private finance initiatives under Labour as seven NHS trusts face administration as they struggle to repay large debts from PFI deals.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9356942/Blair-defends-PFI-as-NHS-trusts-face-bankruptcy.html

“Six other NHS trusts face joining South London Healthcare in "administration" as they have taken on projects viewed by ministers as "unsustainable", it has emerged.”

“South London Healthcare NHS Trust will be the first in the country to be put under the control of a special administrator tasked with securing its finances.”

“The schemes saw private firms building hospitals, leaving the NHS with an annual fee to pay over around 30 years.”

“The total value of the NHS buildings built by Labour under the scheme is £11.4bn. But the bill, which will also include fees for maintenance, cleaning and portering, will come to more than £70bn on current projections and will not be paid off until 2049.”

Some trusts are spending up to a fifth of their budget servicing the mortgages.

“Across the public sector, taxpayers are committed to paying £229bn for hospitals, schools, roads and other projects with a capital value of £56bn.”

Welcome to 'investment and building infrastructure Labour stlye; government spending went up from £283 bil in 1997 to £507 bil in 2010, with budgets doubling plus for the NHS and education, but where did that money go?

Certainly not on buildings, they were paid for on the 'never never' over 20 odd years (contracts), coming out of annual budgets needed for care until

Digdeepforanswers …. Putin will suffer from more sanctions and will lash out; and Europe (and indirectly us) will suffer from their reliance on Russian gas, but don’t get me started on fracking.

Re the press, think back to the mid 1990’s on, when Mandelson and Campbell controlled them; they had Murdock (his wife sleepovers with the Brown’s), so had the Sun (a sympathetic The Times and unrelated Financial Times), the Mirror, Guardian, Observer, the liberal BBC – which only left the Telegraph and Daily Mail daring to ask questions on the sale of our gold reserves, the decimation of private pensions, our getting closer to a feral Europe, immigration etc etc.

I don’t think this board has ever forgiven the Daily Mail for warning the electorate of the problems building up. lol

Now the press looks back to Labour’s record over 13-years (10 of them the best decade in a century to right all social ills) and current policies, see much of them are 1970’s ‘inspired’ and asks questions the public needs to know they didn’t tell us in 2010 – what are your full tax and spend policies and will there be any surprises, like in 1997 when without being in their manifesto Brown sold gold at a 20-year low price below $300, took away tax relief on pensions and put up the cost of buying a home by raising the Stamp Duty from a near flat 1%.

If you want an NHS or public services put up with labour because a core belief of the Tories is privatised services
They just like to call it the big society to dress it up as a positive

Why are so many people on this thread SHOUTING at me in CAPITALS?? I think you have frightened the op away. Or deafened her.

If you're still there, op, Tories think if you work hard, you'll do ok. Labour know that lots of people are working bloody hard and are still in poverty.

Let me add a historical perspective.

May we boil down the clichés that ‘the Conservatives are for the rich and Labour are for the poor’, as it almost goes back to the Industrial Revolution and bears little semblance to historic events over the past 40 odd years.

In essence the Conservative’s understand how to build a SUSTAINABLE economy, the Labour Party doesn’t as none of them have the first clue how to run a business but STILL run on class/inequality ideology that has failed ‘the working man’ time and time again.

In the 1970’s, as Labour/trade union salaries kept up with high UK inflation and interest rates, industry fell from near 30% of our economy to the low 20%’s, and together with high taxes, meant they were not competitive and few British companies survived. Income Tax started in the low 30%s, went up from the 60%s and the income from investing was tax in the 90%s – and should a company MANAGE TO MAKE A PROFIT, the Corporate Tax was 50%.

So ‘a working man’ might have had decent pay rises but was pay high taxes, UNTIL their company went tits up and then left manufacturing for the Germans and Japanese.

From 1997 our industry lost around 1 million jobs before 2005, fell from 22% of the economy when they came in to 12% in 2010, and to PROVE their 2010 manifesto had no idea how to create Private Sector jobs, in their last budgets they were PUTTING UP National Insurance and Fuel Duty rates (to come in AFTER the General Election) putting more pressure on workers and the job creators.

The Conservative led coalition came in 2010, reversed those tax rises, gave the private sector businesses further tax breaks to help them in the worst recession in 80-years, and NOW we have a much healthier economy that has created 1.8 million jobs since 2010, not all of the 'rich' lol.

So if the Conservatives ‘helping the rich’ means giving Labour’s ideological nemesis ‘the company fat cats’ to stay afoat and hire people, then guilty as charged.

If Labour ‘helps the poor’, means incompetence in growing Private Sector jobs, encouraging mass immigration that needed homes and lowered pay rates, not building enough social homes, encouraging welfare dependency, overseeing education mediocrity, and chose to wait until after 2010 to announce their tax hikes on businesses and the masses – well if that is what floats Labour supporters ideological boats, so be it.

The Private Sector ‘nemesis’ they call ‘the rich’ PAYS for every Public Sector service, welfare/benefits and pensions – sorry peeps, it’s a fact of life Labour cabinets fail to get their head around, every time - and if Miliband wants to ‘create another 1 million Public Sector jobs (as Labour did in 1997 to 2010 and called it sustainable 'growf'), hopefully he’ll remember not to drive the private sector companies that PAYS for them into the wall and ruin this recovery.

OP, have any of these summaries of what Labour are all about, how the Tories differ and how UKIP offer the best solutions, helped you decide whom to support?

'I'm a lifelong Labour voter if that helps'

It didn't help Mrs Duffy

DigDeep - genuinely not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me! (I'm a lifelong Labour voter if that helps)

The 30 per cent who dont vote in general elections, need to remember that
"You may not be interested in politics; but politicians will still make decicisions. which effect your lives for good and ill"

And sad to say it is often the poor who dont vote. The cliche is "They are alll the same" They arent really Even the Lib Dems have lost faith in the bedroom Tax because it does not work. Bit slow on the uptake wake up Nick

Oh Vashta, your are almost quoting mrs "nasty party May who is the Tory Home Sec and could be their next leader.

POOR people are poor for many reasons. Born poor, not well educated,
not able to keep down or even GET a job. (Bosses call the shots on jobs.
( not IDS, Camerooney or Miliband.) VASHTA we are a fundamentally UNEQUAL society. And getting more so. The research shows this.

Well if a radical party does not tackle unfairness. What is the point?

The Labour Party is currently close to the Conservatives because they do private polling. And want votes. (That is the reason Cam ditched his mate Gove) The polls said "Gove is Toxic" To me he always semmed to be looking for a fight. And called teachers ,who are nicer than him. BLOBS I like Green policies. But they wont be in governemnt.

It's not accurate to say that the Tories are for the rich and Labour are for the poor. It's not about how much money you have, it's about the kind of society you want to live in.

The Tories believe in hard work, self reliance and personal responsibility. Fantastic values which most of us would probably support, but they neglect the fact that some people are simply not able to support themselves.

The Labour Party traditionally believes that a civilised society should make adequate provision for those people who cannot support themselves, and it aims for the redistribution of some of the wealth so that everyone has access to a basic standard of living.

Or, my more biased answer: Labour are nice, Conservatives are nasty

I think a lot of it comes down to your own thoughts about poverty.

Are people poor because of lack of effort? Are they too comfortable on benefits and choosing not to work? In which case, the government should champion those who change their own destiny and spend less time worrying about those who don't (Conservative / Right Wing)

Or do you think our society is fundamentally unfair ( in terms of wealth, gender, race etc) and it's a government's duty to help address that balance (Labour / Left Wing).

Worth bearing in mind that the modern Labour party is now closer to the conservative ethos than ever before, so some traditional labour supporters are leaving the party to look for a more left-wing alternative.

I think the poor matter. And the Conservative party has historically been linked to the RICH

Isitmebut....All the papers are talking up Puting and Regan today.Do you think it could be a major world catastrophe. Or will it be like the
last malaysian plain which ditched? Has not been found and our press have dropped it.

Still I suppose the Word NEWS does come from NEW so the papers have a point.
Since Murdocks sun went big you cant tell the broadsheets from the tabs. Torygraph and Guardian headlines follow the SUN But the broadsheets use bigger words in the articles.

Of the columnists TORY I like the people who think forthsemselves Mathew Parris, Oborne and Widdecombe, but NOT Max Hastings . Too dogmatic. Max thinks hes right when hes wrong.

Labour Lib columnists? Young Alan Jones is the unofficial opposition. But he takes it very seriously. Writes well. Hope he isnt daft enough to be an MP.

Polly Gruniad. Is full of compassion BUT she did recommend a Lib-Dem vote in 2010 ( she meant well, but she wont do it again|)

ALL HEAD and no heart makes very callous politicians in my view. But it is a matter of opinion

Someoneond said to me the other day "You are the last one who reads newspapers. " Not really, the dailies sell 10 to 13 million a day.

But the Sundays have a less Tory bias. Keep reading and writing.

Missetch ..... basic Conservative ideology; the size and cost of the State should be where it NEEDS to be to do it’s job, not sucking in more and more taxes from everyone, as ‘the people’ should be able to keep as much as they earn as possible, but not lower their expectations on what the State provides from cradle to grave.

They also believe the State should help individuals to help themselves via a good education and a thriving private sector that creates sustainable employment, not nanny them via a State than can only function by the taxes from businesses and those employees, and condemn them to welfare dependency, often for generations.

Note that Labour left a £157 billion annual budget DEFICIT, now down to just over £100 billion, that on the cumulative national debt, of £1.3 trillion, CURRENTLY costs the taxpayer £52 billion a year, in interest charges alone.

Labour believe in NONE of the above, which economically and socially is why the economy tanks under the weight of debt when they leave power. Look at the last time they left power with employment HIGHER than when they took over.

Look at the tax rates for everyone they left in 1979, and in 2010 they said a new Labour administration would spend MORE on a fat State with a £157 billion deficit, and tax MORE, but as the government in power for 13-years REFUSED to tell the people in 2010 where those extra taxes would fall - when the size of our annual £157bil overspend could be nowhere near covered by taxing the rich, as the tax take of next to nothing via a 50p income tax rate proved.

Labour proved in 13-years just throwing money at sectors without reform did not work, but they are not used to managing an economy in deficit (likely to be around £100 bil in 2015),

So under Labour we will once again get inefficient and expensive government, much higher taxes for everyone (they alluded to in 2010), and a national debt going ever higher – taking more and more interest charges out of ANNUAL government budgets and leaving the estimated 1.5 trillion debt itself, to our grandchildrens grandchildren to be paying it off.

Digdeepforanswers …… OK so you do not disagree with the total eco social Horlicks Labour left, but disagree with ‘the Bedroom Tax’ the coalition brought in.

Four years on, I have to admit I’m with the Lib Dems on this, the figures show it has not worked as planned, so with harry-hindsight it was a bad policy, but lets look at WHY such a desperate policy was introduced.

According to the charity Shelter’s figures I could link to, in 2010 there were 1.7 million families (5 million people) desperate for social housing. According to various sources I have heard, there were over 800,000 to 1 million spare bedrooms not used by those who were in them.

Surely any socialist would agree that helping the MANY without bedrooms (or in bad housing) was more important than allowing the FEWER with spare bedrooms to remain in them, when like everything else the coalition inherited, URGENT action was needed, with no plans left by Labour to BUILD more social homes – and a honking £157 billion overspend to sort out.

So this was the problem, the coalition had to hit the ground in 2010 running and to them this seemed a short term solution to HELP the homeless recorded by Shelter, so any accusation they did this for anti poor ideological reasons is both pathetic and baseless when looking at the demand for homes they inherited.

After 4-years, I have no idea how many of those waiting now have homes, but it is clear there were not enough homes for those with spare bedrooms to trade bedrooms down to.

Every government makes mistakes, but this was one out of immediate desperation to give the homeless homes that suited NOW, not a policy by design.

And frankly I’d be more peed off at the government who KNEW they were encouraging mass immigration, were told in 2004 PRE via the Barker Report (with no idea of the immigration to follow), they had to build TWICE as many homes per year as they ever did, so left this problem in 2010 – and blames the coalition for todays housing markets/crisis.

But who am I kidding, voters always punish the political party that has to sort out the problems, not those who are incompetent in the GOOD and bad times and pretend they have a money tree to sort them out.

ME BUT I suppose these things are are up to a point a matter of opinion

But some say the BEDROOM TAX has driven poor people to despair and even suicide. And benfit suspensions which have taken MONTHS to put right have caused similar distress. Duncan Smith does not face public questions very often, And is said to bend the truth in his statements on the failings of his new system THE POOR DO MATTER what ever Tories.

I have missed the Test Captin cook still in?

Missetch ....Labour has an anti business, tax everyone high and spend like a drunken sailor in a brothel ideology that fails every time and left an economic and social basket case in 1979, and another one in 2010, and THEN the Conservatives have to take the tough decisions to sort it out.

Labour supporters have to blame the Conservatives ‘helping the rich’ which is rollocks, as the 50p tax rate they introduced by Labour after 13-years in power raised nothing, and the rich are paying more taxes under the Coalition, than under Labour e.g Brown lowered Capital Gains Tax down to a tapered 10% and left it at 18%, why, if not to help the rich?

Read the open post from this link; it takes a specially type of incompetence to take the fastest growing economy in Europe they inherited in 1997, and hand over what they did in 2010 via THE POLICIES THEY INTRODUCED.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2049409-Do-you-think-Labour-DESERVES-to-get-a-majority-in-2015

We had the Labour ‘thickies’ introducing these policies, as usual it takes Conservative ‘brains’ to get the economy back on track.

Here was Labour’s 2010 General Election manifesto, do you see any policies to build the social homes available that were less in 2010 than when they came in despite all the increases in government spending? A policy to CREATE private sector jobs they lost (many before the 2007 crash) as they increased public sector jobs by 1 million funded by taxes that were decreasing?
Labour’s 2010 General Election manifesto – at a glance.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8615297.stm

I could go on, but this is proof they had NO ANSWERS to the problems they created, and only those with blind ideological faith would think that mass immigration (mostly non EU citizens) living and working here under Labour HELPED the working classes of the UK.

All of the problems the Coalition have had to fix e.g the LACK of bedrooms for 5 million waiting for social housing, CAME from a 2010 Labour government, NOT the ones from 1997 the Conservatives handed to Labour.

I am sure I am now going to be lectured about the 80 marginal seats
which decide elections.

That is what the main parties say. And you can beleive them on that.

I livie in a "marginal" seat. Makes it more interesting Camerooney and Ed Miliband will turn up to do some propoganda.

I dont like year long election campaigns where all leaders do things for the headlines.

Are you lot Marginal or safe seats. (Any party members posting on mumsnet? (Not Dave, Ed and Nick anonymously surely?)

Tory governents traditional enourage personal GREED
And GREED is not really very good.

Any modern society needs a "safety net" Unless the government backs FOOD BANKS on every street corner in poorer districts.

David Cameron recently tapped up billionaires for his Tory party.

ETON is not a comprehesive school It is full of toffs who invade Tory Cabinets.

Added tp this the Tories win most seat in rich areas and Labour tends to win in poorer. areas. We could site SURREY Barnsley.

There is the odd exception. If you are interested you can check the Times Parliament book with results of 2010 election. Esther McVey has a scouse accent. That is amusingly different for a Tory minister.

Politics has an amusing side. But I have never fealt a great thrill pf power when casting a vote. Mumsnet has more clout than my vote

What FreckledLeopard said.

Makes me laugh when people day Tories are for the rich!

My perspective is that the Tories encourage individual responsibility. Work hard, study hard, strive to better yourself. In general, the Tories support privatisation and have a core belief in the importance of the free market economy. There's less of a desire for red tape, government intervention or hand-outs.

Labour: far more reliance on the state. Less of a 'get up and go' attitude. More of a belief in mediocrity. People aren't expected to take responsibility for themselves as there's always a safety net.

UKIP: racist, bigoted, ill-conceived and ill-thought out policies. Designed to exploit the fears of the less well educated.