Why are you dreading a Tory government?

[Swedes]

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?

Thanks peachy, I skimmed most of that, the only 'this is how section 28 affected me' I noticed was 'As it is, my children are learning from their friends to use the term "gay" as an insult, but the teachers are unable to correct this prejudice because of Section 28', but another BBC page says this isn't true at all

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/848847.stm

'Schools Minister Jacqui Smith spelt out: "Section 28 does not apply, and never has applied, to the activities of individual schools in England. It applies only to the activities of local authorities." '

Here is section 28:
"2A
Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material .
(1)
A local authority shall not? .
(a)
intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality; .
(b)
promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. .
(2)
Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease. .
"

I'm not sure what is meant by 'promoting' homosexuality. Perhaps they put it on buy one get one free? Anyway, 1(a) doesn't seem unreasonable. 1(b) is clearly more controversial, but as noted it applies to the local authorities promoting activities in the schools, not the schools themselves.

So I'm not quite clear what effect repealing section 28 actually had. I suspect none at all, though obviously people were happy to see the 'homosexuality is bad' message lifted.

One of Labour's fascistic concepts: that of "earned citizenship"

Not to mention the unnacountability of politicians and the level of state interference in everyones' lives

The hypocrisy is breathtaking

Section 28 was an ... interesting ... piece of legislation. The "pretended family relationships" was very nasty - just look at the wording. That is no way for a government to be talking about same-sex relationships, with children. Horrible when you think there were/are children in school who had parents who are same-sex partners and/or might be considering that option for themselves.

I still think it was shameful.

Someguy is sort of right. I remember when it was introduced, talking to a local government representative saying that it was somewhat ineffective and might mean very little real difference in terms of what services could be legally delivered.

BUT

It introduced paranoia and self-censorship, which had real effects. And it was brought in on a wave of hysteria; partly about curbing local government spending, partly about anti-pc hysteria, and partly, of course, just pure homophobia. And it fanned that hysteria. Surely not what a government should do?

Nasty to appease and actually endorse those sorts of views. Vile to use that lowest-common-denominator sentiment to bring in legislation to control local councils.

And that is why I really care about the language that the Conservatives might bring into government - because it sets an ethical tone in public (and private) life - and has real effects.

On a happier note, Section 28 HAS been repealed. Many schools don't know this. Make sure yours does.

Onlywomen Press has a whole bundle of stuff for use in schools that presents same-sex relationships, with children, as normal.

It's legal to do some "promoting" now.

Btw - for anyone who's interested in this subject, i would really recommend this book

anna marie smith

BTW, why wouldn't it have been reasonable for a local authority to provide positive portrayals of LGBT people and families?

I was talking about section (a) 'Promoting homosexuality' (to me the only way to 'promote' homosexuality would be to say 'it's great, all you straight kids should try it') - which seems uncontroversial surely? Rather than section (b) 'presenting gay families as 'normal'', which is less so.

I'm not really familiar enough with the way education authorities and schools operate to comment on the school/authority connection in terms of how teaching materials get to schools, so I don't know how much schools depend on local authorities for things.

Anyway, it was actually very narrow in scope, I suspect legislation or not, a proportion of parents will object to teaching about gay-related issues.

I'm sure it is great, but I don't think many people would think schools should encourage kids to give it a try. There's a difference between 'some people are gay, this is the way they are' and 'you should give being gay a try, even if you don't think you are'.

actually morningpaper, te british nhs system is not the best in the world....german stem in the days I was younger was fab....all insurance based, but not at private insurance prices, and back than even dentist was totally covered by health insurance...and even than free doctor choice, etc....that was a good system...sadly by what my mum is telling me, whilest still good quality, there is more extra money to pay now...

Thing is, Fairlady, that system is very expensive and subject to increased costs paid by the, errr, "consumer".

I used to think the idea of individuals having some sort of insurance which might be paid by the state, might be partly paid by the state on a sliding scale, wouldn't be too bad. But you can just imagine how the contributions from the government would fall in bad times. And it makes cost-control at the provision end quite tricky.

the german insurance system back than was for all, if you were a person on benefits you still got insured and it was payed by the state...

tbh, the pay system possibly ends up similarly to the british one, as we are paying through natinal insurance....just teh choise, and that you can self referr...you don't have to bore the GP with a skin pronb, you just mkae an appointment wiht the dermatologist instead, etc...

and my mum, now pays the same as we over here...i.e. prescription charges, and dentist being the main ones....but still the choice and self referral

I think that's why it gets so expensive! Dermatologists cost more to see than GPs. Which is fine if you need to see one. But often people self-present with something that a GP could have sorted out or that will just resolve of its own accord.

And the second you have the idea of individuals carrying health insurance with them, rather than a free at point of provision health service, the door is potentially opened to the idea that the contribution to that individual's insurance by the state can be chipped away at. Which then leads to the other door of ... two-tier health provision.

I really hope that that system isn't introduced here, though I can believe it was very pleasant to be a recipient of it in your mother's day.

well...tbh, don't think tat has happened in germany.....

obviously, just like over here you can have private insurance but, than you really do get private treatment...not that that is necessarily brilliant...because, I used to be a nurse on a mixed ward, as in private and non private, and because the proffessor would earn more by keeping patients longer, he used to happily tell us nurses that we shouldn't mobilise his patients if they didn't feel up to it......didn't do the patient any favour...

tbh, as with dermatologist/gp////gp's go for crappy usesless aqueus/e 45 or steroids, and abth wise they tend to do oilatum....
they don't consider individual differences, even in lighter cases...because they don't have the training...
so, whilst initially it might cost more, treatment is far shorter, because they do it properly the first time...

tbh, as with dermatologist/gp////gp's go for crappy usesless aqueus/e 45 or steroids, and abth wise they tend to do oilatum....
they don't consider individual differences, even in lighter cases...because they don't have the training...
so, whilst initially it might cost more, treatment is far shorter, because they do it properly the first time...

off topic a bit but I think there's massive cute in public services coming whoever gets in next time.

Is everyone happy that the country is now in effect being run by Peter Mandelson

Don't be daft Cammelia. It's being run by civil servants.