A challenge for Labour supporters!

[Tete123]

During a discussion on CB I asked the question - in the last 13 years of our Labour Gvnt what area(s) of policy have Labour improved?

So I open this challenge up to the forum. I am particularly interested in hearing from either those who directly support Labour, those such as Expounder, or those who may vote Labour due to their dislike of the Conservatives.

The main areas of policy;

Health
Education
Economic
Foreign Policy
Housing - urban regeneration
Rural affairs
Policing & Crime, law and order
Poverty & Social mobility
Defence, terrorism and security
Employment, industrial relations and training
Public safety and disaster mitigation
International development
Immigration and Asylum
Climate change and environment
Human rights
Families, children and youth
Governance and politics / corruption and sleaze
Social policy
Personal privacy / civil liberties
Care Services (Ageing, disability etc)
The EU

Please feel free to add an area if I have missed one out...

I accept that people will probably make mention of certain policies such as the minimum wage or the increase in spending/resources in our schools & hospitals but I am specifically asking if the funding/measure has improved the service or policy area by the standard expected if in fact at all.

[Expounder]

During a discussion on CB I asked the question - in the last 13 years of our Labour Gvnt what area(s) of policy have Labour improved?

So I open this challenge up to the forum. I am particularly interested in hearing from either those who directly support Labour, those such as Expounder, or those who may vote Labour due to their dislike of the Conservatives.

The main areas of policy;

Health
Education
Economic
Foreign Policy
Housing - urban regeneration
Rural affairs
Policing & Crime, law and order
Poverty & Social mobility
Defence, terrorism and security
Employment, industrial relations and training
Public safety and disaster mitigation
International development
Immigration and Asylum
Climate change and environment
Human rights
Families, children and youth
Governance and politics / corruption and sleaze
Social policy
Personal privacy / civil liberties
Care Services (Ageing, disability etc)
The EU

Please feel free to add an area if I have missed one out...

I accept that people will probably make mention of certain policies such as the minimum wage or the increase in spending/resources in our schools & hospitals but I am specifically asking if the funding/measure has improved the service or policy area by the standard expected if in fact at all.

I must have rattled your cage Tete you're really trying to blind me with with figures most of which I can't supply for obvious reasons. I don't have answers

The two I can give you are NHS spending up to £95billion up annually and Education increased 48%. from 1997.

What I suggest you do is to give the comparable figures that you want and tell us how badly labour funding is performing against Tory funding when it was in office taking into account inflation. This should be quite easy for an academic as yourself

Don't forget the Tory legacy of leaking delipidated classrooms because of lack of funding, and the parents expected to purchase any new book acquisitions for schools.

NHS wards closed through lack of proper funding, privatisation of cleaning in hospitals, leading to disinterested agency staff and filthy wards a legacy and culture which is taking years to reverse.

Nurses leaving the profession because of the deteriorating conditions, replaced by agency nurses who were paid more than the dedicated professionals who were left do all of the unsavoury jobs while the agency staff looked on.

You try to lecture me about funding Tete well I will lecture you about Tory intentions. Ken Clarke has warned bosses of a return to the old days of Thatcher style cuts. The shadow Business Secretary said Quote; "Tory cut planned by David Cameron would be harsher than those announced." Unquote

Cameron and the Tory party will use this present climate as an excuse to reintroduce a Thatcher style regime and impose their ideology. It will freeze, then reduce incomes by taxation, end the NHS in it's present form and promote private medical care, while at the same time increase the wealth of those who could afford to be taxed. All this in the name of Tory ideology.

Whats most important Tete are the intentions of the next government, and Tory intentions spell disaster for the ordinary voters of Britain, and a free and easy ride for those with wealth.

Labour on the other hand will have to make cuts, but will also squeeze the wealthy to share the load and will endeavour to do it's best protect education and the NHS thats what you and Midas are reallyconcerned about.

[Tete123]

I must have rattled your cage Tete you're really trying to blind me with with figures most of which I can't supply for obvious reasons. I don't have answers

You haven't rattled my cage Exp - Labour have! I set the challenge not to blind you with figures ( I didn't provide any, merely areas of policy to be discussed ) instead I wish to engage on what it is exactly that Labour have achieved in their 13 years in power. The answers are there Exp; empirically via government and independent stats and through experience in our daily lives.

The two I can give you are NHS spending up to £95billion up annually and Education increased 48%. from 1997.

I accept the increase in public service spending my question and the purpose of this thread was to debate the claim that this spending has improved public service to a standard appropriate to said spending. Please see my thread on education spending: http://www.politic.co.uk/education/1...html#post93472

What I suggest you do is to give the comparable figures that you want and tell us how badly labour funding is performing against Tory funding when it was in office taking into account inflation. This should be quite easy for an academic as yourself

I'm far from an academic Exp. Why should I provide comparable figures for the 1979-1997 Tory years? I specifically asked what Labour have done in the last 12/13 years (1997-2009) I posted this in the Labour section thus to create a debate set in the modern era - if you do indeed wish to discuss political history then feel free to set your debate here: Political History - Politics Forum and Political Blog discussing and debating political and social issues.

Don't forget the Tory legacy of leaking delipidated classrooms because of lack of funding, and the parents expected to purchase any new book acquisitions for schools.

If I was discussing the legacy of the 1979-1997 Tory Gvnt I would obviously address these issues. I instead set the debate squarely on New Labour 1997-2009 and wish to discuss the current standards of education. The lowering of standards, the restrictions on educational discipline, the removal of teacher authority and autonomy; these are areas that should be debated here in my opinion.

NHS wards closed through lack of proper funding, privatisation of cleaning in hospitals, leading to disinterested agency staff and filthy wards a legacy and culture which is taking years to reverse.

All true no doubt but not relevant when discussing New Labour and their tenure over the NHS: This is an example from my local hospital Exp: Regulators demand improvement at Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

This is another area of care neglected by New Labour : Councils named and shamed for poor care standards - Telegraph

You have had years to reverse the supposed damage caused Exp and the result is increases in hospital acquired diseases, lack of Doctors in A&Es and filthy / cramped wards. Although we are obviously fortunate that we have a huge rise in hospital administrators to oversee the mess and provide damage limitation.

Nurses leaving the profession because of the deteriorating conditions, replaced by agency nurses who were paid more than the dedicated professionals who were left do all of the unsavoury jobs while the agency staff looked on.

Again this is a view that maybe should be discussed in the political history section. As I have been clear from the outset - I am only concerned with 1997-2009 the period of the incumbent Labour Gvnt.

You try to lecture me about funding Tete well I will lecture you about Tory intentions. Ken Clarke has warned bosses of a return to the old days of Thatcher style cuts. The shadow Business Secretary said Quote; "Tory cut planned by David Cameron would be harsher than those announced." Unquote

I wasn't lecturing you on funding; in fact apart from making mention of the fact that you and your cohorts would mention funding I was asking for specific successes in policy areas. You seem unable to provide any; I wonder why that is Exp?

Cameron and the Tory party will use this present climate as an excuse to reintroduce a Thatcher style regime and impose their ideology. It will freeze, then reduce incomes, end the NHS in it's present form and promote private medical care, while at the same time increase the wealth of those who could afford to be taxed. All this in the name of Tory ideology.

Speculation, the haven't made this explicitly clear in any of their policy documents. I again must ask you to address New Labour, tell me what they plan for the NHS; how are they protecting the NHS?

Whats most important Tete are the intentions of the next government, and Tory intentions spell disaster for the ordinary voters of Britain, and a free and easy ride for those with wealth.

So what is Labours plans - I am struggling to ascertain from their speeches etc what their intentions are.

Labour on the other hand will have to make cuts, but will also squeeze the wealthy to share the load and will endeavour to do it's best protect education and the NHS thats what you and Midas are reallyconcerned about.

I am not concerned if they set out a plan that truly realises those goals Exp. They have had 13 year in which to improve this country and they have failed. They embraced the culture of the city , thus selling out their core support and far from protecting education and health have done nothing to resolve the underlying issues affecting standards in the public sector.

[Expounder]

You haven't rattled my cage Exp - Labour have! I set the challenge not to blind you with figures ( I didn't provide any, merely areas of policy to be discussed ) instead I wish to engage on what it is exactly that Labour have achieved in their 13 years in power. The answers are there Exp; empirically via government and independent stats and through experience in our daily lives.

I'm just a retired Labour foot soldier who regards, with good reason, the Tory party and all it stands for as my natural enemy. In the same way as you regard Labour in which ever form old or new Labour as a natural enemy. So were both on level terms there.

I accept the increase in public service spending my question and the purpose of this thread was to debate the claim that this spending has improved public service to a standard appropriate to said spending. Please see my thread on education spending: http://www.politic.co.uk/education/1...html#post93472

I can't measure what would be worse as I have no yardstick with which to measure whether the Tories would have "performed better" if better means by saving money and by doing so undermining education. It's all about saving money, and in your the [Tory] case the priority would be saving money be it at the expense of education .As in The last Tory government.

I'm far from an academic Exp. Why should I provide comparable figures for the 1979-1997 Tory years? I specifically asked what Labour have done in the last 12/13 years (1997-2009) I posted this in the Labour section thus to create a debate set in the modern era - if you do indeed wish to discuss political history then feel free to set your debate here: Political History - Politics Forum and Political Blog discussing and debating political and social issues.

If I was discussing the legacy of the 1979-1997 Tory Gvnt I would obviously address these issues. I instead set the debate squarely on New Labour 1997-2009 and wish to discuss the current standards of education. The lowering of standards, the restrictions on educational discipline, the removal of teacher authority and autonomy; these are areas that should be debated here in my opinion.



All true no doubt but not relevant when discussing New Labour and their tenure over the NHS: This is an example from my local hospital Exp: Regulators demand improvement at Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

This is another area of care neglected by New Labour : Councils named and shamed for poor care standards - Telegraph



You have had years to reverse the supposed damage caused Exp and the result is increases in hospital acquired diseases, lack of Doctors in A&Es and filthy / cramped wards. Although we are obviously fortunate that we have a huge rise in hospital administrators to oversee the mess and provide damage limitation.



Again this is a view that maybe should be discussed in the political history section. As I have been clear from the outset - I am only concerned with 1997-2009 the period of the incumbent Labour Gvnt.

I'm sure that's all you want to talk about while air brushing out the very policies that brought about a disastrous decline in all services through ideological arbitrary scything cuts during the Thatcher years. People will fear with good cause that Cameron will take advantage of the present financial situation to finish the job left undone from that period.

I wasn't lecturing you on funding; in fact apart from making mention of the fact that you and your cohorts would mention funding I was asking for specific successes in policy areas. You seem unable to provide any; I wonder why that is Exp?

The policy areas of both parties will be made clear when their manifestos are published. The only problem is that the Tories usually have two policies, one published the other as a hidden agenda. If they spelt out their true intent they would never get elected. This is what I meant when I talked about Tory intentions, their manifesto will not reflect their true intentions about the way out of this crisis.

Speculation, the haven't made this explicitly clear in any of their policy documents. I again must ask you to address New Labour, tell me what they plan for the NHS; how are they protecting the NHS?

Whatever they plan will be to make every effort to maintain the NHS as as national service. Also do their level best to maintain a fair distribution of whatever resources there are during this crisis.[/QUOTE]

So what is Labours plans - I am struggling to ascertain from their speeches etc what their intentions are.

I am not concerned if they set out a plan that truly realises those goals Exp. They have had 13 year in which to improve this country and they have failed. They embraced the culture of the city , thus selling out their core support and far from protecting education and health have done nothing to resolve the underlying issues affecting standards in the public sector.[/QUOTE]


You will have to wait for the Labour manifesto to get your answers on these points. But whatever state health and education is in at present it's far improved from the days of the last Tory government. The improvement is plain to see.

[Tete123]

I'm just a retired Labour foot soldier who regards, with good reason, the Tory party and all it stands for as my natural enemy. In the same way as you regard Labour in which ever form old or new Labour as a natural enemy. So were both on level terms there.

This is where you have me wrong, I do not consider the Labour Party my natural enemy. I may consider the current Labour incarnation as an enemy of the British public but I would offer praise and support if they were to adopt a path I felt was more consistent with making Britain a better place. New Labour were created from spin and continue in that not so proud tradition to this day!

I can't measure what would be worse as I have no yardstick with which to measure whether the Tories would have "performed better" if better means by saving money and by doing so undermining education. It's all about saving money, and in your the [Tory] case the priority would be saving money be it at the expense of education .As in The last Tory government.

I did not ask you (or anyone else) to compare Labours handling of the country over the last 13 years as a 'what if' the Tories were in power. I didn't mention the Tories, my question was 'what area(s) of policy have Labour (since 1997) improved?'

Are our economic circumstances better of worse than in 1997? Has the gap between rich and poor closed? Does our education system turn out well developed, intelligent and educated 16-18 year olds? I think it is acceptable to consider the extra funding as a good thing but have we seen a proportionate increase in the quality of services for the extra investment?

I'm sure that's all you want to talk about while air brushing out the very policies that brought about a disastrous decline in all services through ideological arbitrary scything cuts during the Thatcher years. People will fear with good cause that Cameron will take advantage of the present financial situation to finish the job left undone from that period.

The reason I only want to talk about 1997-2009 is because I am SPECIFICALLY discussing the impacts of THIS Labour government. I am more than happy to discuss the Conservative period - just not in this thread. Are Labour ideologically the same party they were in 1945? What about the same party they were in 1992 - did Blair not alter the way in which the party saw itself and in turn the way in which the country saw it?

Cameron is nothing like Thatcher and I think it goes some way to highlighting just how bad the current government is, that its supporters are ONLY able to rely on this historic debate of what was or what may be instead of what actually is .

The policy areas of both parties will be made clear when their manifestos are published. The only problem is that the Tories usually have two policies, one published the other as a hidden agenda. If they spelt out their true intent they would never get elected. This is what I meant when I talked about Tory intentions, their manifesto will not reflect their true intentions about the way out of this crisis.

How much of Blair's 1997 manifesto was enacted? Thus the same argument can be applied to the Labour Party Exp. Politicians often promise things they cannot deliver and the public lap it up like the gullible fools that we are. The one thing I will say at least the Tories acknowledged the need for spending cuts and possible increases in taxes instead of Labour saying one thing and writing up quite another.

Whatever they plan will be to make every effort to maintain the NHS as as national service. Also do their level best to maintain a fair distribution of whatever resources there are during this crisis.

As is the intentions of the Tories Exp. You speak of fair distribution of resources yet failed to respond when I provided examples of Labour UNFAIRLY distributing resources and services to their marginal constituencies.

You will have to wait for the Labour manifesto to get your answers on these points. But whatever state health and education is in at present it's far improved from the days of the last Tory government. The improvement is plain to see.

Is the EDUCATION better? I am not talking about how many teachers, books, resources, buildings or funding - HAS THE ACTUAL QUALITY OF EDUCATION IMPROVED?

[Expounder]

This is where you have me wrong, I do not consider the Labour Party my natural enemy. I may consider the current Labour incarnation as an enemy of the British public but I would offer praise and support if they were to adopt a path I felt was more consistent with making Britain a better place. New Labour were created from spin and continue in that not so proud tradition to this day!

Exactly, provided that they fit in with conception of what is good for people like yourself, and provided your financial status is maintained and improved. That is your criteria for good governence. self preservation.

I did not ask you (or anyone else) to compare Labours handling of the country over the last 13 years as a 'what if' the Tories were in power. I didn't mention the Tories, my question was 'what area(s) of policy have Labour (since 1997) improved?'

Not having exact figures for this or the inclination to spend time looking for them, I told you, I don't know. I can't be more honest that. But as you introduced the subject if you feel like doing this to prove a point be my guest. You seem to think there is something in the figures that can help your case.

Are our economic circumstances better of worse than in 1997? Has the gap between rich and poor closed? Does our education system turn out well developed, intelligent and educated 16-18 year olds? I think it is acceptable to consider the extra funding as a good thing but have we seen a proportionate increase in the quality of services for the extra investment?

What you are infering that Labour without malicious intent has misapplied funds to various projects and in your opinion hasn't got the maximum benifit from them.

Do you think that any government trying to honestly improve policies to help projects can always get it exactly right? What I'm arguing is that the Toriesif elected, in their efforts to "correct"what they deem to be Labour's mistakes will use this excuse to pare spending down to the bone no margins allowed as in the NHS and Education in its last term and when things go wrong,it will be the institutions that suffer it's par for the course.

The reason I only want to talk about 1997-2009 is because I am SPECIFICALLY discussing the impacts of THIS Labour government. I am more than happy to discuss the Conservative period - just not in this thread. Are Labour ideologically the same party they were in 1945? What about the same party they were in 1992 - did Blair not alter the way in which the party saw itself and in turn the way in which the country saw it?


Cameron is nothing like Thatcher and I think it goes some way to highlighting just how bad the current government is, that its supporters are ONLY able to rely on this historic debate of what was or what may be instead of what actually is .

I seem to remember him serving in the chancellor Lamont's office in the lead up to Black Wednesday and also had a hand in helping to write the Tories 1997 manifesto. Not a very good CV, eh Tete.

How much of Blair's 1997 manifesto was enacted? Thus the same argument can be applied to the Labour Party Exp. Politicians often promise things they cannot deliver and the public lap it up like the gullible fools that we are. The one thing I will say at least the Tories acknowledged the need for spending cuts and possible increases in taxes instead of Labour saying one thing and writing up quite another.

What I believe is that the Tories won't spell out in their manifesto what they really what to do, it will be dressed up and worded for public consumption with the real application of the policies being dictated by hardliners who think that Cameron is coming over contradictory and too soft. Which don't believe he is. He will give a soft version of Tory plans but the boot will follow if elected.

As is the intentions of the Tories Exp. You speak of fair distribution of resources yet failed to respond when I provided examples of Labour UNFAIRLY distributing resources and services to their marginal constituencies.

I love this one, one name: Lord Ashcroft. and marginals.

Is the EDUCATION better? I am not talking about how many teachers, books, resources, buildings or funding - HAS THE ACTUAL QUALITY OF EDUCATION IMPROVED?

Every thing has improved as it could never be as bad as when the Tories left office.

[Tete123]

Exactly, provided that they fit in with conception of what is good for people like yourself, and provided your financial status is maintained and improved. That is your criteria for good governence. self preservation.

I'm disinclined to respond to what is clearly a misinformed opinion of both my personal views and circumstances but, in the interest of setting the record straight I will provide some clarity. I left school with no formal qualifications and that position remains the same to this day. I am what could be considered a victim of the financial crisis in that I was made redundant and lacking post graduate education have struggled to maintain ANY prolonged gainful employment for the last 15 months. I was fortunate enough (although via unfortunate circumstances) to purchase my own home which I sold shortly before the ensuing crisis at a small profit which has sustained me during this period but, has been almost totally wiped out. I am not entitled to any governmental support due to a combination of savings, having a partner in employment and through personal responsibility having no dependants that require state maintenance. I am confident that my circumstances, far from being maintained will considerably improve. My views are based on the concept of personal responsibility and common sense, rather than a self aggrandising ideal of saving the world and alleviating world poverty - in that sense I suppose self preservation is the correct term to use. I may have empathy with those less fortunate (illness, extreme poverty etc) but, passionately believe that OUR individual choices are often the cause of OUR misfortunes and successes and in my case the burden of misfortune is mine and mine alone.

I hope this signifies that far from the champagne scoffing toff you seem to perceive I'm probably far closer to what would once of been - a core Labour voter!

Not having exact figures for this or the inclination to spend time looking for them, I told you, I don't know. I can't be more honest that. But as you introduced the subject if you feel like doing this to prove a point be my guest. You seem to think there is something in the figures that can help your case.

I realise your much more inclined to making senseless and uninformed attacks on conservatism and those who advocate it than actually defending or informing RE Labour and their legacy - I wonder why this is?

What you are infering that Labour without malicious intent has misapplied funds to various projects and in your opinion hasn't got the maximum benifit from them.

I did not infer anything. I asked a series of questions that you fail to address. I suggest a broad range of policy areas to discuss and nothing more.

Do you think that any government trying to honestly improve policies to help projects can always get it exactly right? What I'm arguing is that the Toriesif elected, in their efforts to "correct"what they deem to be Labour's mistakes will use this excuse to pare spending down to the bone no margins allowed as in the NHS and Education in its last term and when things go wrong,it will be the institutions that suffer it's par for the course.

I accept that implementation of policy can and does have various impacts; not all of which are positive. You are making broad generalisations about conservative intentions yet fail to apply the same standards to the Labour Government. To you the faults of 2009 are set in 1979-1997 and blame Thatcher for all social ills. When will you wake up to the fact that your beloved party embraced the same ideology and that Labour are very much a continuation of all you despise; your unwavering support is tantamount to hypocrisy.

I seem to remember him serving in the chancellor Lamont's office in the lead up to Black Wednesday and also had a hand in helping to write the Tories 1997 manifesto. Not a very good CV, eh Tete.

Yes D.Cameron was a speech writer for Norman Lamont and was present in the lead up and during Black Wednesday. In Dylan Jones book Cameron on Cameron comments on the events:

The treasury was acutely conscious of the problems but couldn't do anything about them. Germany needed high interest rates to reduce inflation after unification, and we needed low interest rates to reduce unemployment after the recession, and there was this incredible strain and in the end that was what broke it apart. It will always go down as a bad period in British economic policy, there is no doubt about it, but what matters is that you learn the lesson from it and the people who were there by and large did. I learned so much from just being there, seeing everything that went on around me.

The fact is Exp it was Major and Hurd who signed us up to the ERM and not Cameron. Conditions to join were not favourable and whilst I agree this is a criticism the conservatives must bear, it's disingenuous to besmirch Cameron for Black Wednesday.

What I believe is that the Tories won't spell out in their manifesto what they really what to do, it will be dressed up and worded for public consumption with the real application of the policies being dictated by hardliners who think that Cameron is coming over contradictory and too soft. Which don't believe he is. He will give a soft version of Tory plans but the boot will follow if elected.

You would say that though Exp. As far as I am concerned you assert this based on your hatred of conservatism and on nothing else but speculation.

I love this one, one name: Lord Ashcroft. and marginals.

What is it £4.5million from Ashcroft? Not the same thing as closing a hospital or post office and relocating the new build to Labour held constituencies is it?

Every thing has improved as it could never be as bad as when the Tories left office.

ECONOMY!!!

[Expounder]

I'm disinclined to respond to what is clearly a misinformed opinion of both my personal views and circumstances but, in the interest of setting the record straight I will provide some clarity. I left school with no formal qualifications and that position remains the same to this day. I am what could be considered a victim of the financial crisis in that I was made redundant and lacking post graduate education have struggled to maintain ANY prolonged gainful employment for the last 15 months. I was fortunate enough (although via unfortunate circumstances) to purchase my own home which I sold shortly before the ensuing crisis at a small profit which has sustained me during this period but, has been almost totally wiped out. I am not entitled to any governmental support due to a combination of savings, having a partner in employment and through personal responsibility having no dependants that require state maintenance. I am confident that my circumstances, far from being maintained will considerably improve. My views are based on the concept of personal responsibility and common sense, rather than a self aggrandising ideal of saving the world and alleviating world poverty - in that sense I suppose self preservation is the correct term to use. I may have empathy with those less fortunate (illness, extreme poverty etc) but, passionately believe that OUR individual choices are often the cause of OUR misfortunes and successes and in my case the burden of misfortune is mine and mine alone.

You've made your choice, you are a member of the flash Tantal and Pauli club "I am an island I stand alone" attitude. That's your decision. So have many other working people made the same decision otherwise the Tories would never get elected.

Politics is not only an Ideology that only reflects the interests of a particular group interest, but can also reflect a state of mind that chooses to follow a particular Ideology.

You say you could have been a natural Labour supporter, the fact that you are not, could be down to number of reasons. There is no explanation why someone with little or nothing should support a ruling elite whose aim to maintain power and riches for themselves and their rich friends at the at the explicit expense of the unwashed multitude. Your choice Tete and whether you think so or not I do respect it. But don't expect me to understand it. You're the odd man out here not me.

I hope this signifies that far from the champagne scoffing toff you seem to perceive I'm probably far closer to what would once of been - a core Labour voter![

Tete, your posts seem very high and mighty in their pro Tory stance and that is the only way I can assess who or what you are. In my profile I'm an open book warts and all, and after being teased, even posted a photo of myself on the forum. You may be a Tory party worker for all I know looking for a career in politics advance through the ranks and make your fortune

I realise your much more inclined to making senseless and uninformed attacks on conservatism and those who advocate it than actually defending or informing RE Labour and their legacy - I wonder why this is?

Because I'm not going to give the antis who make up the majority who contribute to this form the pleasure of any differences or disagreements I may have with Labour. See my profile Tete it says "anti Tory" they are the enemy. You've given me an insight into your back ground, I'm not going to bore you with mine, suffice to say I've experienced enough Tory Policies to last me another life time.

I did not infer anything. I asked a series of questions that you fail to address. I suggest a broad range of policy areas to discuss and nothing more.

I'm not going to start researching on your behalf Tete, you do the research if you think it will prove your case, and I will answer accordingly.
I'm no going to fall for your mind games. You come over as a superior know it all Tory with "in depth" posts telling us how beneficial it would be if only we let characters like Lord Ashcroft and people like him run the country. The only conclusion I can come to is that you hope someday to emulate him.

I accept that implementation of policy can and does have various impacts; not all of which are positive. You are making broad generalisations about conservative intentions yet fail to apply the same standards to the Labour Government. To you the faults of 2009 are set in 1979-1997 and blame Thatcher for all social ills. When will you wake up to the fact that your beloved party embraced the same ideology and that Labour are very much a continuation of all you despise; your unwavering support is tantamount to hypocrisy.

I am not going to stand by and watch what is left of Labour values be torn to shreds by the Tory Pit Bull. Whatever errors Labour has made in electing leaders of making policies it's still a part of a wider Labour movement which is the only shield between the ordinary person and the likes of Ashcroft and his cronies and the Tory party. It needs preseving and strenghening in it core values. To destroy it would leave the field open for unopposed attacks on ordinary people.

Yes D.Cameron was a speech writer for Norman Lamont and was present in the lead up and during Black Wednesday. In Dylan Jones book Cameron on Cameron comments on the events:

Whatever, he served in the fag end of the last Tory administration that did in fact bankrupt the country following their policies of self preservation of the rich and in the process and completely F***** up.[excuse my french] and at the time there wasn't a global meltdown as there is now, due to the financial crooks you now want us to re-endorse.

The fact is Exp it was Major and Hurd who signed us up to the ERM and not Cameron. Conditions to join were not favourable and whilst I agree this is a criticism the conservatives must bear, it's disingenuous to besmirch Cameron for Black Wednesday.

The self appointed kings of finance the knowable ones the Tories completely F***** up [excuse my french again]

You would say that though Exp. As far as I am concerned you assert this based on your hatred of conservatism and on nothing else but speculation.[/QUOTE]

My hatred of conservatism is well founded through a life times experience.

What is it £4.5million from Ashcroft? Not the same thing as closing a hospital or post office and relocating the new build to Labour held constituencies is it?

Ashcroft's millions are designed to interfere directly and blatantly with the electoral process.

ECONOMY!!!

Yes............................................... ....

[Expounder]

If any one wants to to pick up some of the Ideas of Labour's plans I recommend reading the following links.

It would be pointless in rehashing these in the form of post as the literary presentation would be would not be up to the standard as the journalistic offering of the links.

I know this is piecemeal, but until a manifesto is published in full this is the best way of discovering the trend of Labour's thinking.

These articles are written by independent journalists who have on many occasions have criticized the Labour government on various policies.

The articles also contain an balanced analysis of some of the plans Labour is proposing and are not just dry figures.

I have often thought that the longer the general election campaign[and it will be one of the most extended in recent history] the bigger disadvantage for Cameron it would be. One of the articles below expounds[forgive the pun] on this theory. worth a read.

Resurgent Brown ready to declare class war on Tories | Politics | The Observer

Andrew Rawnsley | The Tories have put all their chips on David Cameron | Comment is free | The Observer


Darling plans tax on bank bonuses | UK news | The Observer

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

A bit off topic, but given the total incompetance, inability to spot let alone tell the truth, and general cr*pness, the quicker we get rid of Brown, Harperson and all other nu-Lab losers the better. Only problem is we'll get rid of one bunch of corrupt self-serving idiots only to elect a slightly different bunch.

I often wonder if a junior officer in the military would do the decent thing.....

Getting back to the topic, the NHS is better, though no where near as good as it should be for the amount of cash thrown its way.

[JAMC]

Ok from the outset I am not a labour supporter, but the thought of voting tactically to reduce the likelihood of a tory majority has crossed my mind.
Anyway, here's my scoring of labour's performance against each area.

Health

Mediocre. The quality of care on the few occasions that I did have to visit a hospital couldn't be faulted, my concerns regarding Labour's performance on health revolve around unsustainable spending and poorly conceived managment-by-target practices. The sheer quantity of money pumped into the NHS may deliver short term improvements but will ultimately drive costs up in future as the suppliers adjust prices to compensate. My other concern is that most of the new infrastructure built during the Labour years has been built using PFI - which (mark my words) will become ruinously expensive for the next generation of taxpayers (i.e. me) to finance.

Education

Very poor. Originally I ranked this as just 'poor' but then remembered the emphasis placed on education, education, education at the start of the labour years. The introduction of tuition fees and the general marketisation of higher education will be extremely damaging for our society in coming decades. The quality of graduate in all but the most elitist subjects has been comprehensively diluted, and the resultant workforce is lumbered with higher debt and poorer skills (NEETs anyone?) than those that came before. Focusing the majority of spending on the nursery school places, supposedly to improve the 'life-chances' of the kids in question has been utterly ineffectual in combating the dramatic decline in social mobility and stark rise in inequality that Britain has experienced since 1997. By labour's own standards then, their education policies have been a complete failure.

Economic

Very poor. I am a member of Generation Y - the first generation in centuries that can expect a lower average standard of living than my parent's enjoyed. 'nuff said.

Foreign Policy

Poor. Iraq saw Tony Blair become the lap-dog of an imbecile.

Housing - urban regeneration

Very poor. The UK is short of approximately 4 million homes. The number of so-called 'hidden-households' increased dramatically as the country's would-be first time buyers were priced out of the over-inflated housing market. Meanwhile baby-boomers used their over-priced former council houses like a cash machine and burned through their equity, spending it on crap and buying up other properties for letting - ensnaring the disenfranchised young into funding their lifestyle. Our towns and cities are fundamentally overcroweded, and the planning system acts as a tornicade on the supply of desperately needed new housing stock. What little stock that has been produced (by private developers of course) is of such low quality and small size that first-time buyers are condemned to raising families in accomidation that is utterly unsuitable.

Can you tell that this is a particularly sore point for me?

Rural affairs

Poor. Banned foxhunting when there was no real need to. Allowed the countryside to slowly turn into the playground of the wealthy as youngsters were forced into the cities to find homes. Coastal villiages in devon, cornwall etc lay empty for 40 weeks of the year because their stock-broker owners are away working in London. It's fair to say that some rural communities have died as a result of inaction.

Policing & Crime, law and order

Mediocre. The police I believe have improved since 97, but then Labour also gave them far more work to do by bringing in 24hr drinking - a decision that turned many high streets into nothing but alternating rows of pubs, estate agents and pools of vomit.

Poverty & Social mobility

Very Poor. Inequality is at it's highest point since 1945, and labour presided over the largest increase during that time.

Defence, terrorism and security

Poor. Far too heavy-handed.

Employment, industrial relations and training

Poor. Unemployment is at it's highest since the 1980's, and nothing has been done to alieviate the problem of long-term unemployment and generational unemployment. Training was virtually non-existant until the latter half of the noughties (resulting in the NEET explosion), but looks promising going forward.

Public safety and disaster mitigation

Good. We had a fair amount of 'challenging' weather since 1997, with remarkably few fatalities. The big blot on the record (round here at least) is that virtually every road needs resurfacing after the snow. It would have been nice if there were more gritting going on during the last couple of really cold spells, but any serious incidents have resulted in individuals being completely stupid or unprepaired, can't really hold labour responsible for that.

International development

Mediocre. We give a large amount, my question would be can you point to a single significant success resulting from it? By and large I think the EU has achieved far greater successes in eastern Europe than we have in Africa for example.

Immigration and Asylum

Mediocre. Started off very poorly by giving a lot of fodder to the Daily Mail, but handled the far larger influx of new-EU country migrants fairly well. Circumstances have helped recently.

Climate change and environment

Poor. Targets have been missed and Copenhagen was a fudge. Twiddled thumbs whilst energy sources became scarcer and power stations became decrepid. We now face an energy gap and suceptability to oil price shocks as a result.

Human rights

Poor. Passing the terrorism act was a low-point, as was colluding with the US in torturing terror suspects. Generally we fail to live up to the hype both at home and abroad. While the UK still remains a relatively free place to live, this one is definitely moving in the wrong direction.

Families, children and youth

Very poor. Appauling, truly awful. The demographic shifts produced in part by labour policies make for a very ugly picture for anyone that believes in the institution of the family. The young bore the brunt of the 2008-09 recession. Pity the next generation, for they shall inherit the national debt yet receive none of the benefits the previous generation enjoyed whilst chalking it up.

Governance and politics / corruption and sleaze

Poor. Expenses scandal cannot be attributed exclusively to Labour as politicians from all parties were caught with their hands in the till. Nevertheless much-overdue electoral reform was promised but never delivered - this has now become chronic and threatens to undermine the entire political system.

Social policy

Poor. Britain is a fundamentally weaker socity than it was 13 years ago.

Personal privacy / civil liberties

Poor. Fortunately we didn't end up with ID cards, but they mulled it over for a seriously long time. CCTV is rampant, and I think I'd quite like to punch the inventor of the 'mosquito'.

Care Services (Ageing, disability etc)

I don't know enough about this to rate it fairly.

The EU

Poor. We've been sidelined by the failure of the 'Anglo-saxon' economic model that Labour were so keen to promote, and the provision of key industries by markets is now enshrined in EU law.