Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Why are you dreading a Tory government?

313 replies

Swedes · 10/06/2009 11:11

Social mobility under Labour has fallen to the levels experienced in the 1950s. That means if you are born poor, you remain poor and if you are born wealthy, you stay wealthy.

I heard this morning on R4 that the NHS is experiencing the worst funding crisis in its history.

I could go on but I'm sure you get my drift.
Labour have had over a decade to fulfill their promise that "things can only get better". It's time for a change.

Can you please give me a few good reasons why Labour should remain in office?

OP posts:
hullygully · 11/06/2009 19:31

There's more love with Labour. They even rent love dvds for their partners on expenses.

Peachy · 11/06/2009 20:01

D'ya thin there was much love in it then Hully ?

The labour furel allowance bonus for carers bought me a coat this winter after 5 mnths of doing without. Small but good.

bella39 · 11/06/2009 20:19

someguy - did we snog at a Young Conservative Ball circa 1987?

smallwhitecat · 11/06/2009 20:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ABetaDad · 11/06/2009 20:57

smallwhitecat - I agree with this:

"Classic leftie tactic, that - label all those of opposing views as deluded/extremist/insane."

It happens in ther places on MN too. There is a distinct left wing bias I feel on MN in many areas. Not very representative of the population. Indeed, at times MN reminds me of the leftie student politicians of the common room at University I endured in the early 1980s. Slagging off Thatcher at every opportunity for closing mines but not having the faintest clue about real life. Funny how they all went off to get jobs in the City after leaving University. Snouts and trough.

Personally, I hope Labour are buried by the Tories and then Dave unleashes severe spending cuts that slash the public sector senior hierachy, quangos, and general waste but leaves front line services strengthened and free to get on with their jobs.

Overspending by Labour in the last 10 years has virtually crippled our country to the point we can barely defend ourselves.

AbricotsSecs · 11/06/2009 20:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

jambutty · 11/06/2009 21:11

So Smallwhitecat you base this on ONE post out of over 130 and yet don't point to any of the other intelligent posts - classic tory tactic that - taking one comment as representative because it's the one you can most easily challenge .
How do you know the views on MN aren't representative of public opinion at large? Don't you think this IS public opinion - a website used by thousands of people every day, with many different viewpoints expressed and discussed? Or is it just that you don't agree with the views?

jambutty · 11/06/2009 22:13

"I hope Labour are buried by the Tories and then Dave unleashes severe spending cuts that slash the public sector senior hierachy, quangos, and general waste but leaves front line services strengthened and free to get on with their jobs." Yes ABetaDad - like they did the last time they were in power

smallwhitecat · 11/06/2009 22:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

myredcardigan · 11/06/2009 22:22

Well, SWC, your first sentence just tars you with the same brush.

Just because some posters disagreed with your sentiment and believe that with all it's faults (and there are many) the Labour party is the lesser of two evils, does not mean their posts were unintelligent.

jambutty · 11/06/2009 22:26

Adult Discussion 101: A post you don't agree with is not an unintelligent one, smallwhitecat.
This is one of many, many threads. I think you'll find that some people on some threads are supportive of the Labour party, some on others are not.
Labour were going to do badly; they're the party in government at a time when we're in a recession and MPs expenses have really really p*ed people off so they're bound to punish the party in power, and half the cabinet just left. That doesn't actually mean they don't have public support. It's just hiding at the moment

mammablueeyes · 11/06/2009 22:34

have we really got any choice here, as many others have said one of them are trustworthy and none of them have any sensible painless plans to tackle any of the counrties problems, of which there are many.
The NHS and education system have benefitted from alot of investment and transformation but combined with an ever increasing elderly population, an increase in obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, depression and many other related and non related illnesses the NHS is on its knees, immigration has also affected many schools as they are having to teach more and more non english speaking children (I have heard this from many in the profession), generally I feel for Gordon Brown because he has had one catasrphy afteranother since her took over but confidence is so low even from within the gov itself I dont know whats the answer

mammablueeyes · 11/06/2009 22:38

sorry i meant NONE of them are trustworthy

SomeGuy · 12/06/2009 00:05

I bet social mobility was higher in the 50s. My parents grew up then, working class, in grotty parts of London, went to grammar school and university and became middle class as a result. Good luck with that now.

Labour decided to replace the grammar schools with 'bog standard comprehensives' and the result is what we've got today. Not saying the Tories are going to be any better in that respect, they did start the dumbing down of exams in the 80s. I certainly wouldn't say they're to blame for it though, education is institutionally left-wing after all.

cherryblossoms · 12/06/2009 01:47

I read an article in a newspaper saying that the abolition of grammars was down to an alliance of anguished middle class parents, whose dc had failed to get gs places and a Tory council, desperate to placate said parents.

Have no idea how true that interpretation is but thought it was funny; it was a lovely combination of finding a new angle on a contentious issue + blaming the middle classes in an unlikely setting.

Truly shocking about social mobility, though. I remember reading my sister's sociology textbook and coming across a statement to the effect that an individual's rise from the lowest social class to the higher ones was so rare as to be statistically insignificant. That was over twenty years ago. Dread to think what it's like now.

Is standard of living over all higher now? (A question - I don't know, would like to.)

Peachy · 12/06/2009 08:38

We're allowed to be l;eftie and unrepresenattive if we should wish, and only one person called the Tories fascist, and that person was immeidately called on it.

I would argue that labelling amny post that doesn't meet your approval as tactis and unintelligent is almost as subversive.

People post their experiences and base their decisions on their loives, dismissing that because you don't agree is nboth rude and arrogant.

Peachy · 12/06/2009 08:42

SG socialmobility was higher for some in the 1950's.

My dad was the 15th (there were 16) child of very poor aprents, the first to be accepted to Grammar school and couldn't go becuase of the inabilty to afford uniform, not hugely unsuaul. He had the potential to be a massive success, but still lives in a council house. The real success is that he survived a childhood with a drunk father and sick Mother, several of his siblings did not.

This sia very common story when you start to look at the real extreme poverty of the era- nobody wanted to know at all. At least today we have social services, uniform grants, and the availablilty of student finance enable me to attend University, and both my sisters to either have or be now attending HE.

LeninGrad · 12/06/2009 08:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Peachy · 12/06/2009 09:38

Ok, so my political rationale, and why I ahve a leftie bias. Please don't think (as someone said very early on in the thread) that I automatically voye with my parents, indeed I am not sure how Mum votes. dad is politically active so I know with him, but he cleaqrly thinks as he changed allegiance from the Tories (we are talking late sixties here) To Lib Dems via the SDP and a period when I was small where I have no idea. From him I learned not where to palce my vote, but to think and consider all alternatives before making the decision. Therefore I am entitled to have my views taken seriously even by those who disagree with me, as I try to with other people.

I am a beleiver in that experiences feed the informed vote, and it is my experience that no matter how much hard work you put in, life is full of surprises, both nasty and good. People think they have a good income so are unaffected by social provision- I wonder how many relaise that a palcement for a severely disabled person can cost £1000 a week? And how many truly recognise that disability and illness can happen to anyone in the blink of an eye?. It's not about parents who drink during pregnancy, or council house dweller- it can happen to anyone as they cross the road, or catch an illness. It's random.

I had no reason to suspect I would need benefits. This past year on CA is the first I have not been in education or work in my life. often in diffiuclt jobs, such as the charity sector, so I have certainly worked for my supper.

Yet here I am, reliant on the state in most part, simply because autism happened. Nobody knows why, but therewas no reason to suspect it would hit us, especially twice over.

Dh also worked hard, had two jobs for several years, but lost one a few months back: the fact that his current job is part time and self emloyed would lead to some on here removing his TC's, but it seems to me those many years of hard effort are now repaying themselves in our lack of total reliance on the state, a hige bonus both for us and the country (we still pay NI). At teh same time our landlords (they inherited this house, ahrdly well off) are protected as we need not claim HB so arestill withion contract and stillpaying our rent.
If peoplethink they p[refer Tory policies then fine, vote that way.. Bt people who sneer at others for voting how they wish

I recognise the tax rate will need to rise to pay debt, but I am actually OK with that. I fully intend if at all possible (I am reliant of the existence of SN childcare) to return to work in a year, DH si retraining in a well aid field, I suspect at some point we will be on HR Tax and that's OK.

As for my boys- well 2 seems ASD free and one will always need some support but may be able to combine with work. Iw ould rather they paid higher taxes and thereore ahd the freedom to choose how much of a carer role they took on. It's insurance, after all: higher taxes mean we get choices when things aren't equal. At some stage, as we age, things will be not equal for alomost all of us, and unless we are the Beckhams we're likely to rely on the state, ensuring it's there for us when we fall is good sense.

In the last year, and especially the last fewmonths, I have learned a lot about human nature and it's odd. people vote and exist to protect their self interest- never thinking that things will change, they will age, their industry may collpase, their artners become infirm. I find that odd.

I really hope that when I am earning again I will be able to remember that others will be where we were, and not complain about pounds needed to ensure their safety.

If people think they prefer Tory policies then fine, vote that way.. uBt people who sneer at others for voting how they wish or imply that voters who disagree are lacking in thought are offensive, just because we do not think the same does not eman my views are less than yours, just different.

I do not vote labour, BTW; I am a memeber of the Greens atm, though that will be reviewed as ever.

When you vote, vote with awareness: that voting leftie means you will pay mroe taxes andprobably get more staste intervention, that voring Conservative means you may well spend you retirement begging for respite care and wondering wen yo will get NHS help. All parties and philosophies have a 'price', we shouldn't delude ourselves in that, but some IMVHO are mosre socially acceptable and responsible than others.

AbricotsSecs · 12/06/2009 10:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

happywomble · 12/06/2009 12:07

I believe education and health are important areas for governments to spend money on.

I agree with abetadads suggestion that more money should be spent on people in front line roles and not bureaucracy.

After all the money spent on health in the last few years we should not be in a situation where there is a shortage of midwives.. Our local hospital is really grotty..I assume it has not been invested in as labour have pumped all the money into their inner city heartlands.

I think labour / liberal democrats would be likely to spend more than the tories on health/education but it will be targeted solely to inner city ares and funded by the middle classes in tory areas.

I imagine the tories will cut costs and I just hope it would be the bureaucracy they would cut and not the numbers of teachers/ nurses etc. I could not bear the thought of class sizes going any higher in state schools.

The tories will not attempt to take money from the seriously wealthy so I imagine the middle earners will continue to be squeezed.

Therefore as some one living in an affluent area but not able to afford private healthcare/ private education I do not see that either of the three main parties would make life any better.

Although I think the tories and lib dems appeared more focused than labour on the environment. If we have any more years of labour I imagine the greenbelt will be concreted over and airports expanded etc.

Peachy · 12/06/2009 12:15

HW I'm not sure the Lib Dems would in all fairness, they have a lot of representation in palces like Somerset and some resulting awareness of isues such as rural poor.

SomeGuy · 12/06/2009 12:19

How did section 28 oppress you leningrad?

Obviously there were other things, but what was it about section 28 specifically?

Peachy · 12/06/2009 12:26

pewrpectives on section 28 that include personal experiences

happywomble · 12/06/2009 12:30

peachy - this is my worry with the LDs ..they appear to be taking over from labour in the cities but losing votes to the tories in the rural areas in the south.

I used to vote Lib Dem. I liked things like the penny on tax to pay for education. They used to be more green than the other parties. They had the right stance on the war. They opposed tuition fees.

However I don't really know what they stand for any more. I don't like the idea of their local tax to replace council tax. I would have preferred Chris Huhne to Nick Clegg...Clegg comes across too much as a lesser version of David Cameron.