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

[Missetch]

I don't know where to start with supporting either and it's probably because I feel overwhelmed with what they stand for...

I could do with a nutshell version of them to help me decide who I want to support...

Can anyone help?

[VashtaNerada]

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.

[VashtaNerada]

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

[Jinsei]

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.

[digdeepforanswers]

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.

[digdeepforanswers]

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

[VashtaNerada]

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

[claig]

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

It didn't help Mrs Duffy

[VashtaNerada]

[claig]

[claig]

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?

[Isitmebut]

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.

[Scarletbanner]

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.

[wanttosinglikemarycoughlan]

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

[Isitmebut]

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%.

[Isitmebut]

'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

[Isitmebut]

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.

[Isitmebut]

Oh and in 2010, Labour refused to 'ring fence' the then NHS spending when cuts were due to the £157 bil budget deficit they handed over - the Conservative did and increased spending.

Just as well as in the past decade, the population has risen close to 5 million and those visiting A&E has DOUBLED in the last several years, so in who's hands is the NHS safe, Labour's? lol

[claig]

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

OP, you have not been back and the above summaries may have confused you. It can be summarised in 4 words that they all use often.

"All in it together"

[shockinglybadteacher]

OP, I think it can be summed up as well with "They all do the same things but Labour pretends to be nicer about it".

Isitme I'd agree with parts of what you are saying. PFI was an incredibly stupid idea, for starters. But the issue about public sector spending isn't that Labour governments are incapable, by their very nature, of negotiating contracts. You seem to think Labour are a party of wild-eyed idealists. That might have been true about three seconds after their founding, but it didn't last. It is not true today.

The issue about public sector funding is that it's a fundamentally sound and positive idea but successive governments, both Labour and Tory, have done dreadful things to it. If you want an example where the Tories have fucked up (you don't, but anyway) Universal Credit. Anyone who's ever spent two minutes on the DWP's incredibly clunky internal systems, or even had sat down and thought about how benefits are provided, could have told you that wasn't going to work. And lo and behold, it didn't. The Tories' famed acumen let them down a bit there, no? And how much was spent on that again?

Other things - The Private Sector (so important that it needs All Capital Headings) doesn't subsidise the public sector. We pay you, mate. We provide your contracts. I can think of a hundred businesses easily where the public sector is a major client, in some cases it is the most important client. Hate us so much you want to jack that all in and be FREEEEE? Didn't think so.

I also love the idea that trade unions all support Labour and provide vast magnificent salaries and pensions for all of their members. I bloody wish (aside from the supporting Labour part). My union is non affiliated and I don't even make 20k (I'm actually a fair way away from that). There are things in life however which are slightly more important than earning loads of money, although I appreciate I am saying this to a Tory, so the idea might be confusing to you.

[digdeepforanswers]

Well the trade unions doesnt do as well for Labour as the billionaires do for the Tories. I think there is a serious debate to be had about party funding. It aiant gonna happen soon. It needs to be up front and above board. My Local radio hunted down the brewers about party funding . Thay met a brick wall. (the brewers get their way with successive governments, )
The farmers do pretty well .The teachers said they were struggling under squre Gove. (84 per cent of them anyway)



)

[Isitmebut]

Digdeepforanswers ….. yet more one liner Labour class cliché propaganda that is ill informed at best, hypocrisy at it’s worse.

Please read this short passage about Labour ties with Hedge Funds and other businesses for donations;and let us not forget that while all parties ‘reward’ their cronies with Lordships, Blair was the first P.M. in many a decade to have a police investigation into their ‘cash for Lord’s’ shenanigan’s.

“Who Runs Britain?” by (the BBC’s) Robert Peston
www.socialismtoday.org/122/peston.html

Wasn’t the company owner that was awarded the NHS I.T. project that went £18 billion(?) over budget for a system (the NHS was hardly consulted on), involved in cash for Lords and also the Private Clinic that was awarded the mental health contract of our returning soldiers with those issues?

Why did Labour/Brown make substantial cuts to the Capital Gains Tax, via a taper relief as low as 10% (and then later an 18% rate by 2010) so attractive for City folk like Private Equity companies who’s bosses “paid less tax than my tea lady” – to ‘help the ‘working classes’? Tell me the last Conservative parliament that lowered the tax paid on capital gains, anywhere near that level.

Why did Labour WAIT until the end of 13-years in power, to go against their 1997 and 2005 manifesto pledges ‘not to raise Income Tax’ to put up the top rate from 40% to 50%, to ‘help the working classes’ for 13-years? The fact it was to raise next to nothing in new taxes, was here nor there, it looked good to ‘the faithful’ for the 2010 General Election to help cover their economic and social incompetence.

P.S. The left wing teaching establishment having had 13-years under a left wing government encouraging educational mediocrity, kicking up a fuss about ‘change’ to give the tax payer value for money and prepare our children for work, really, I wonder why.

Re those ‘farmers doing well’, FYI after 13-years of Labour this country was far less domestic ‘food secure’ than we were in 1997, so something went wrong.

[VashtaNerada]

I feel so sorry for the OP...

[claig]

"I feel so sorry for the OP..."

"grimbletart Thu 17-Jul-14 19:48:21

Are you expecting an unbiased response on MN? grin
Add message | Report | Message poster
Missetch Thu 17-Jul-14 20:10:01

Anything really...
Add message | Report | Message poster
Missetch Thu 17-Jul-14 20:11:08

Oh I see! but yeah as biased as you like!"

I think the Labour supporters saw that as a green light to be as biased and partisan as they liked and they certainly rose the challenge!

[Isitmebut]

And I added balance. lol

Shockinglybadteacher …… I do not think that Labour are “wild eyed idealists”, arguably they mean well, but if nothing else the last 13-years of Labour proves they are inept running an economy, as they always overspend and have no idea how to promote the Private Sector that pays for it all – so I repeat they will always run the economy down into debt and emergency measures, that will ALWAYS affect every person, but the poor the most.

As Mr Miliband has just announced ‘no return to tax and spend’, he has done that for a ‘credibility’ reason, but frankly it will take more than that.

Firstly, let me clarify what the Private Sector is, basically it is the part of the economy not controlled by the State, ranging from a City hedge fund, a factory, down to a small business owned by one person e.g. a high street shop, all (usually) paying Corporate Tax, and their employees, income tax and national insurance.

The Public Sector is 100% paid for by the Private Sector; please do not listen to Ballsian and Public Sector trade union economic theory that believes when our taxes pay 100% of a State workers salary, we get economic ‘growf’ from the taxes they pay, it is the road to annual deficits/public debt/ruin.

Your view that Conservatives and Labour are as bad as each other in government spending is incorrect, from 1979 that is, and lets put some figures on this using the figures from a Financial Times dated 28/3/2010;

• In 1997 Government Receipts were £272 billion, government expenditure was £ £283 billion and Public Sector Employment was 5.2 million people.
  

• In 2010 Government Receipts were £468 billion, Government expenditure was 570 billion and Public Sector Employment had reached 6.1 million people.
  

Can you see that DESPITE the recession the Private Sector was experiencing from late 2007, with employment and company/personal taxes falling dramatically, when Labour in 2010 had no plans to boost the Private Sector companies, and was at least keeping Public Sector expenditure/employment the same, it is no wonder the size of our annual budget deficit (later acknowledged to be £157 billion) was so large.

Furthermore, waiting for the Public Sector (the State) expenditure and employment to PRODUCE the taxes to both pay our annual education, NHS etc bills, reduce the annual budget overspend AND reduce our accumulating National Debt, it was economic incompetence of a grand scale – so under Labour it is GUARANTEED the UK would not has seen a recovery with 1.8 million new Private Sector jobs since 2010, by Labour instead ploughing ever more taxpayers money into a top heavy State and increasing everyones taxes, as they suggested in their tax/spend more, cut less, 2010 general election manifesto.

One other little fact to show wanting more taxpayer value from the State ‘is business, not personal’;did you know that the Public Sector’s (State employees) pensions are mostly UNFUNDED and not in our National Debt figures and come out of annual spending budgets when due?

If you didn’t, the last ONS Public Sector pension figure I saw was a total £1.2 trillion (£1,200.000.000.000) taxpayer liability, ON TOP of the £1.3 trillion (£1,300,000,000,000) National Debt, ALL to be paid for by taxpayers who have no such pension plans.

“Final salary pensions 10 times more common in public sector”
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10698432/Final-salary-pensions-10-times-more-common-in-public-sector.html
“Just 8.5pc of workers in private sector have the gold-plated pensions enjoyed by vast majority of public sector employees”


IMO few people would begrudge the Public Sector ‘front line’ their pension, but that is a lot of annual interest rate servicing and total national debt paying off to do, so we can’t risk another economic dip from an economically incompetent Labour, only just realising after 4-years that their lack of a 2010 plan, was not just ‘pants’, but big pants, which would have led to bigger and deeper cuts latter on.

[claig]

'And I added balance.'

If I recall correctly, you launched a vicious diatribe against the statesman and most popular British politician known as Nigel Farage.