VOTE Labour and

[DistinguishedSocialCommentator]

AIBU to feel this will happen un a Labour government???

From what I see and IMO, the Labour lot on the whole believe in aspirations but only for themselves

Older people will vividly recall the the hideous tax rates under labour - between 1974 and 1979 the paye tax rate was up to 80%. Then there was a tax on top of that for so-called higher earners of 18%. This equated to 98%

I don't trust Labour, nor do I trust the Torties. Liberals, IMO they will sell your soul down the river to get a sniff at number 10

As I said I don't trust any of them. But if you are working, worked hard, been prudent with your money and have savings, decent private pensions in the pipeline and possibly a property or two that you have worked for, for your retirement and not wasting your money and want to leave some behind for your kids, GC etc rather than throw it away on the hand to mouth life - then if Labour comes into power, you are totally and truly F'd

Labour rants they will do this and the other - the last time they almost bankrupted England,

If you are working hard being prudent with your money and made sacrifices to send your kids to a private school as many Labour MP's do on pay at almost 100k - they are eager to put VAT on this part of education. The MPS whose pay is a couple of times above average pay will be able to afford it - will you??

Me, my family, relatives have all worked hard, not on benefits, never lived in social housing and not thrown our money away but been prudent to be self-sufficient and pay our taxes to support our country. If you are like us, then trust me, under Labour, you will be shafted hard.

I'm not sure if I will vote tory or an independent but this circus of Tories and Labour taking turns to lie to the nation is not on and yes, most politicians lie and will lie and say anything to get into number 10 and if your feel that is not true, then you must be on another planet

you do realise he was referring to the fact that under the equality act ,'sex' is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex." As stated by a judge, Right?

Right. That doesn’t excuse his stance on the matter nor Labours latest proposals for self id by the back door. Nor labours treatment of women in their own party and others in the HoC. See Miriam Cates. Labour have a women problem. We should all know that by now.

https://unherd.com/2023/01/the-labour-party-has-a-woman-problem/

The Tories appear to have a bigger one. Name one single thing they’ve done to benefit women in the last 14 years. Deeds not words, words are cheap.

So you admit you maybe wrong then?

Aw if that makes you feel better, yes, again. Based on the EA from 2004 when no one really thought about the gender woo bullshit we have to deal with today.

How a legal document was allowed to use the word ‘gender’ is beyond me. Gender being a made up / social construct. But here we are. Rather than amending it Starmer is running with it and making it worse.

‘acquired gender’ what? Gobbledygook .

I thinks it’s incredibly difficult to be;
disabled
out of work
a carer
homeless
on a low wage
in need of good quality social care
old

under the current government they have systematically reduced all services to nothing and made life increasingly difficult and miserable for those hard working individuals who are either working for nothing (carers) or who are on a low wage.

Add in waiting lists, the dire state of mental health care for children and the numbers of children and families now totally reliant on food banks and charity support (the facts are well reported on this).

Something has to change as far as I can see - and with a current PM who is a millionaire and comes from privilege I fail to see how he can ever step a mile in the underprivileged shoes.

I have to agree with others (and I am not saying that I am voting labour) but I have worked in the NHS under both Tory and Labour governments and for me it was better. However that was 15 years ago.

I don’t know if Labour will be any better. I do remember though that things between 1997-2007, seemed like the good times for the economy , and Labour increased public services didn’t they ?

But things did change after 2008 and austerity started with the credit crunch, which lead to the recession.

This isn’t 1997, back then the UKs debt was much lower, there hadn’t been a pandemic, it was quite a different world.

The John Major government was actually fairly uneventful wasn’t it ? I mean between 1990 and 1997, the Major government was relatively stable and the economy improved during those years.

Tony Blair didn’t have a massive mess to clear up.

I actually miss having a boring stable government!

You might regret it for the next 5 years?

Tony Blair didn’t have a massive mess to clear up.

No, he and Gordon B just left one!

No money left.

Did you not read the note their Chancellor left?

Debt over the years.

That’s what I meant..

Labour in 1997 took over when the economy was doing well.

The economy is 2010 wasn’t.

Something has to change as far as I can see - and with a current PM who is a millionaire and comes from privilege I fail to see how he can ever step a mile in the underprivileged shoes.

Billionaire who donated £2.5 million to a Californian University a month before he donated a £10 bottle of wine to a British school.

Not this again. It was a joke. As done by many outgoing chancellors since 1964. It was a Lib Dem who weaponised it and he has since apologised.

@Paul2023 in 2010 the economy was in recovery from the global financial crisis.

don’t know if Labour will be any better. I do remember though that things between 1997-2007, seemed like the good times for the economy , and Labour increased public services didn’t they ?

There was a poster on one of these threads last week (perhaps this one, I can't remember) whose dad was made redundant twice during that period. Tony Blair's benefit 'reforms' left her dad and the family struggling. Lone parents and the disabled were also hit hard. I've attached a link about this. I would consider the benefits system a public service (although I'm aware it's subjective). Poverty and health are strongly interrelated. The NHS and other public services were and still are heavily affected by austerity policies, whether Blair and Brown's, Cameron and Osborne's, or anyone else's.

Imo things, especially for the vulnerable, got worse not better under Blair and Brown. (That doesn't mean things got better under the Conservative governments that followed, just that both were bad).

http://www.labournet.net/other/0409/disability1.html

Things didn’t get worse, particularly if you needed health care.

https://assets.kingsfund.org.uk/f/256914/x/54a86c88b5/high_performing_nhs_2010.pdf

Poverty and health are heavily interrelated. Poverty increases the need for healthcare. Blair's benefit 'reforms' increased poverty and as a consequence increased the need for healthcare. Worth noting too, that poor health often gradually builds up so the full effect of policies from those times only become more apparent years later (although it was an obvious consequence for anyone who looked into it at the time). That doesn't absolve the following Conservative governments and their own version of austerity from the blame, but equally the same applies to the 1997-2010 Labour governments.

Blair had repeatedly promised to halve child poverty by 2010 while campaigning for the 1997 and the 2001 General Elections. In 1997 4.3 million children were living in poor households (34%); this figure rose to 4.4 million in 1998/99 and now stands at 3.8 million (30%) – it is estimated that over half a million children have been lifted out of poverty between 1998/99 and 2007. Estimates for 2010-11 suggest that 2.2 million children are or will be living in poor or deprived families (while the initial target set by Tony Blair was 1,7 million).

The attached graph illustrates.

https://journals.openedition.org/osb/1174#:~:text=In%201997%204.3%20million%20children,between%201998%2F99%20and%202007.

Not the letter again. Are people really so ill informed?

No, they just think we’re all gullible despite the facts being presented every time it’s mentioned. And they all think they’re being so clever.

This bollocks on so many levels, but people keep spouting it and variants of it.

If Labour win ,Kier Starmer will wake up on the morning of July 5th , after Labour celebrating a win ,with the same problems Sunak has now.

Two wars, the whole transgender issue, strikes, NHS waiting lists , the economy , immigration, the boats crossing the channel etc etc.

Really? Thank you so much for telling us. We’d never have known without a man to tell us. 🙄

Very kind. Thanks for allowing me to express my opinion- even if it’s stating the obvious.

Another opinion if that’s ok?.. Starmer will
be under pressure to deliver on these promises.

Another opinion if that’s ok?.. Starmer will* be under pressure to deliver on these promises.*

Indeed, I think disillusionment will sink in when people realise our public debt is too large to make material changes to public services. Neither Starmer nor Sunak can fix our fundamental issues, frankly governing is a poisoned chalice at the moment.