I have a schoolpaper on the labour party where I am to discuss the changes that have been made to the Labour Party since the early 1990s and examine what the Labour Party has achieved during its 6 years of government.


I have done some searches on the internet, and I've found some helpful information. I've also read up on some books on the subject.

However, with such a knowledgeable bunch of people as you guys, I figured why not see if any of you can give me some information.


Any information and help will be highly appreciated!

They turned into a social democratic party. they used to be socialist.

The members though are still either lentil munchers in Islington or
trade union member form up north

Thanks! Anyone else?

wel, i live in brazil, and the labour party (PT here) has elected the president. although they had a big history of fighting for the laborers, and strike organizing here, now they have to live according to the markets, although they didn't want to.
you could mention the fusion of workers party with the market. at least is what is happening here.

They realized they didnt have a cat in hells chance of getting into power by sticking by their socialist roots and cleverly remarketed themselves as a left leaning conservative party thus attracting the middle class whilst holding on to their ground roots working class supporters who were always going to vote Labour regardless. It was a wonderous bit of sly propaganda that worked like a charm. Unfortunately once in power they have started to revert to their natural colours and have upped the tax burder by around 60% by way of backdoor stealth taxes. The middle classes are finally starting to notice and the working class are finally getting sick of New labour not being Socialist enough. This government is in deep, deep trouble very soon. The Liberal Democrats have about as much chance of getting into power as I do of turning into a grapefruit so finally the Conservatives may be able to soon regain power. Not a moment too soon.

Originally posted by Kentonio
They realized they didnt have a cat in hells chance of getting into power by sticking by their socialist roots and cleverly remarketed themselves as a left leaning conservative party thus attracting the middle class whilst holding on to their ground roots working class supporters who were always going to vote Labour regardless. It was a wonderous bit of sly propaganda that worked like a charm. Unfortunately once in power they have started to revert to their natural colours and have upped the tax burder by around 60% by way of backdoor stealth taxes. The middle classes are finally starting to notice and the working class are finally getting sick of New labour not being Socialist enough. This government is in deep, deep trouble very soon. The Liberal Democrats have about as much chance of getting into power as I do of turning into a grapefruit so finally the Conservatives may be able to soon regain power. Not a moment too soon.

Spot on. The reason they are in power is because the tories seem determined o self destruct.

You forgot to mention the destroyal of our pensions btw.

Blair is riding high on the performance of our armed forces atm. Not the first time the armed forces have saved a troubled PM. But i think people are noticing just how much they pay out for no visile improvements of services.

The argument "it takes time" is not valid given the length of time they have been in power

Originally posted by Kentonio
finally the Conservatives may be able to soon regain power. Not a moment too soon.

Didn't the conservatives practically destroy your country last time around?

Originally posted by newfangle


Didn't the conservatives practically destroy your country last time around?

No

But labour are doing it subtly and sneakily

Labour has done a few good 'ideological things', such as reintroducing the minimum wage. Big business screamed that it would lead to massive job losses but they were wrong.

On the whole , the characteristics of Blairism are putting ''management' and 'spin' before political beliefs and concrete results.

I'd agree with Ellie's comments that Blair is riding high on the performance of our armed forces. But I'd also agree with Kentonio that Blair is going to be in trouble soon, he's steadily alienated his own supporters.

The Lib Dems have actually been quietly climbing up the opinion polls, although they began to dip once the war started. It's possible that Iain Duncan Smith may be the next prime minister , but I don't think he'd be a good one. The Tories haven't got their policies sorted out yet after years of opposition, they still don't know themselves yet what they stand for, only the things they don't like.

Just one comment tho chris.

Business's especially small to medium sized ones are REALLY struggling atm. In the last 3 years my company has lost about a half a dozen uk customers that had been in business for over 40 years.

Business taxes, higher minimum wages (laudable i admit) are all contributing to a huge pressure on business.

The money pumped into the nhs has shown no results

Iain duncan smith..well he has no personality. And poor power in his own party. They need to stop fightign internally and get some firm policies together.

They have plenty of things people dont like about labour policies that they could prmise to @undo@

Ellie

Yeah, my families business has also seem many long running customers go to the wall under this government.

Re the Tories it has truly been a horrible thing to watch and although its a cliche I can only blame the media for it. When they lost power the media went into a savage assasination of the Tory party that has continued for years, even now whenever the Tories talk about a new policy or idea you can see the media tear it to pieces or ignore it completely whilst turning the focus ontio 'internal divisions' and such fluff. Its really no surprise that they have so far failed to build themselves back up in the public perception. William Hague would probably have made a superb Prime Minister given the chance but with that high pitched voice and Yorkshire roots the media were always going to have a field day. Watch his performances in parliment now however as he makes Labour look foolish day after day.

Originally posted by Kentonio
Yeah, my families business has also seem many long running customers go to the wall under this government.

Re the Tories it has truly been a horrible thing to watch and although its a cliche I can only blame the media for it. When they lost power the media went into a savage assasination of the Tory party that has continued for years, even now whenever the Tories talk about a new policy or idea you can see the media tear it to pieces or ignore it completely whilst turning the focus ontio 'internal divisions' and such fluff. Its really no surprise that they have so far failed to build themselves back up in the public perception. William Hague would probably have made a superb Prime Minister given the chance but with that high pitched voice and Yorkshire roots the media were always going to have a field day. Watch his performances in parliment now however as he makes Labour look foolish day after day.

The vote for or against war was an insight into the politicians, whether you agreed with the policy or not.

Blair, hague both powerful speeches

Kennedy sounded like such a snivelling worm when he stood up.

Business's especially small to medium sized ones are REALLY struggling atm. In the last 3 years my company has lost about a half a dozen uk customers that had been in business for over 40 years.
The British economy is doing far better than any of its competitors, especially European ones. Blaming New Labour for the downfall of the world economy is stretching partisanship slightly too far in my opinion.
The money pumped into the nhs has shown no results
It's a 10 year plan.
Business taxes, higher minimum wages (laudable i admit) are all contributing to a huge pressure on business.
The internet boom resulting from business incompetence has done far more to put pressure on business than business taxes and higher minimum wages.
Didn't the conservatives practically destroy your country last time around?
A lot of people believe that, hence the massive electoral victory by New Labour in '97.
I have a schoolpaper on the labour party where I am to discuss the changes that have been made to the Labour Party since the early 1990s and examine what the Labour Party has achieved during its 6 years of government.
The greatest achievement of the Labour party during its 6 years of government was getting re-elected. The first Labour government to do so. They gave independence to the Bank of England, welcomed greatly by 'The City'. They have increased so-called stealth taxes (indirect taxes), increased public spending to record levels, brought the spin culture to Westminister, brought us closer to Europe (They signed the Social Chapter of the Mastricht treaty) and tried to reform Parliament (House of Lords and working practices). With their massive majority they could and should have done much more, at least according to most old Labour supporters. Overall I think they have achieved what they set out to achieve but have wasted much of their potential.

Originally posted by MrPresident

The British economy is doing far better than any of its competitors, especially European ones. Blaming New Labour for the downfall of the world economy is stretching partisanship slightly too far in my opinion.

It's a 10 year plan.

The internet boom resulting from business incompetence has done far more to put pressure on business than business taxes and higher minimum wages.

A lot of people believe that, hence the massive electoral victory by New Labour in '97.

The greatest achievement of the Labour party during its 6 years of government was getting re-elected. The first Labour government to do so. They gave independence to the Bank of England, welcomed greatly by 'The City'. They have increased so-called stealth taxes (indirect taxes), increased public spending to record levels, brought the spin culture to Westminister, brought us closer to Europe (They signed the Social Chapter of the Mastricht treaty) and tried to reform Parliament (House of Lords and working practices). With their massive majority they could and should have done much more, at least according to most old Labour supporters. Overall I think they have achieved what they set out to achieve but have wasted much of their potential.

Well obviously this whole argument depends on ones political deologies.

But trust me, the labour policies have directly hit business's, its certainly not "incompetance". In fact its due to adaptability that companies such as ours have survived DESPITE the hits.

Originally posted by newfangle


Didn't the conservatives practically destroy your country last time around?

Hush! Under no account must you spoil the Tories' reverie by being so crass as to mention the Poll Tax, riots in the streets, the ERM debacle or the fact that they're still hopelessly split over the EC. That wouldn't be nice.

Cobblers! Ive yet to hear a rational explanation about why the poll tax for instance was a bad thing. First person to give such an explanation and make it convincing rather than just ranting nonsense wins an orange. :)

At the time I thought the Community Charge was a good idea because I thought everyone should pay equally for services.

However as I got more clued up I began to realise that although this is still true, those who are in a position to pay more should do so and those who cant should be helped. This isnt very fair but I also think that we have a duty to each other as well as to ourselves.

Also if we had a credible opposition then our current government would not be able to get away with so many snow jobs.

But trust me, the labour policies have directly hit business's, its certainly not "incompetance". In fact its due to adaptability that companies such as ours have survived DESPITE the hits. I was speaking internationally when I talked about business incompetence. Though I fail to see why our businessmen are more adaptability than everyone else.
First person to give such an explanation and make it convincing rather than just ranting nonsense wins an orange.
I would but I'm going to wait until the reward gets bigger. Maybe an apple or even a bunch of grapes.

sigh just received my monthly salaray

another big chunk taken out of it in the form of yet higher taxes

I didn't think income tax had been increased.

No not income tax, national insurance.

Just a more @stealthy@ way to raise taxes.

Altho im sure all over the country people will notice they have less all of a sudden.

He also hit business with a raise in tax

So already struggling companies..how to help them? i know make them pay more taxes!

Sheer brilliance ;/

I would but I'm going to wait until the reward gets bigger. Maybe an apple or even a bunch of grapes.

Hmm... Ok an orange and a grapefruit but thats my final offer!

Originally posted by Kentonio
Cobblers! Ive yet to hear a rational explanation about why the poll tax for instance was a bad thing. First person to give such an explanation and make it convincing rather than just ranting nonsense wins an orange. :)

OK, here goes.

Part 1

First off, let's take the central concept of Poll Tax which was that "everyone pays". Admittedly there were reductions available (I was unemployed/student at the time and IIRC the rate I paid was 20% of the full charge). Everyone had to physically make a payment, even if all their income came from government handouts (as millions did).

Think about this. These payments didn't handle themselves. The administrative costs associated with dealing with them made the collection of the Poll Tax for the unwaged an activity that was either loss-making or at the low extremes of "marginal". This could have been avoided by directly extracting it from benefits, but ol' Thatch wanted everyone to actually make the payment physically. It had inefficiencies built in that hit the areas with the highest levels of benefit claimants hardest. The only way they could counter this was to increase their rates.

So, in poorer areas the rates are high and getting higher as the Councils raise the charge levels to cover the administrative expenses. This shifts the burden back on the public, who (in many cases) can only counter this by claiming more benefits. Where does that money come from?

So why was this inefficiency built in? You tell me. Was the likelihood that larger numbers of voters in poorer wards would "go underground" and effectively disenfranchise themselves merely coincidental?


Part 2

In poorer areas, the average number of adults in any one household is higher as people share houses with parents longer before they are able to get homes on their own. Result? Under poll tax the family gets bigger bills, compared to the affluent penthouse-dwellers.

So council; faces the dilemma. Cut services or keep the bills high. That's how people in affluent wards got far lower bills than people in poor wards.

Part 3

When the man in Lambeth Palace pays the same rate as a street-sweeper in a flat in Acre Lane I think it's entirely understandable that people might start getting a bit angsty, don't you? Thatcher, notoriously, did not recognise the concept of society and preferred the notion that we are merely collections of individuals. This was to eventually bite her on the arse.


Part 4

At the time of it's announcement there was great concern within the Tory party about it's implications. However under the Thatcher regime, to air concerns about the beastly proles would instantly label one as "a wet", meaning that one's prospects looked bleak. That's why it was steamrollered into existance by a PM who didn't recognise the notions of "dissent".


Part 5.

It caused widespread protests and rioting among normally law-abiding citizens. It turned the Tories 3-figure majority into a majority of just 20 at the next election, leaving a formerly unassailable party on it's knees. It was very quickly dropped as a bad idea by the Tories. It was instrumental in costing Thatcher her job. Alongside the ERM, it was the worst disaster to hit the Tories since the war.

So, from a Tory perspective at least, it certainly was "a bad thing". How exactly was it a good thing?

Where do I collect my orange?

Not so fast my friend, let me just raise a few of your points..

Point 1: You do have a point about the charging of the fee to the unemployed, I believe it was part of an attempt on her part to lessen the number of unemployed by making unemployment less attractive to the long term unemployed. Before I get anyone savaging this statement btw I just want to mention that back then several of my older brothers friends were long term unemployed and freely admitted that they were completely uninterested in getting a job because there was no point, the council paid for their flat and gave them enough to live on and get drunk at the weekends on, they just couldnt see the point in working for a living. Incidentally even though the benefits are now proportionately lower one of my closest friends has the exact same attitude, something I have argued endlessly with him about. I think the bit about having to actually pay the bill yourself was again part of an idea of getting the unemployed to actually have to take responsibility for their own life rather than relying on the state to do everything for them. Dont get me wrong, I am more than aware that most unemployed people do wish gainful employment but there is a woefully underestimated number who dont, I truly believe these measures were more aimed at them than anybody else.

Point 2: You say that poor people in effect have more people living under one roof so therefore they have bigger bills, I have to refute that slightly. Say two adult sons are living under their parents roof, both are fully employed and bring in good money and yet when the rates bill arrives it is the parents who have to fork out the whole sum, and lets not forget that the rates bill was and is a hell of a lot higher than an individual poll tax charge was.

Point 3: So a rich person paying the same as a poor person is a bad thing? Actually I think you'll find its a part of the whole move towards a truly classless society which Maggie was big on (Rightly I think). You are quite right that Mrs t favoured the idea of the individual over the collective and I agree with her damn near 100% on it. It has often been portrayed as an ideal of the uncaring, that she was trying to promote people to care only for themselves and not for others, im afraid that is simply fantasy, her ideas were pure conservatism, responsibility to be taken by the individual for themselves, the totally athema of the nanny state.

Point 4: The beastly proles? You truly believe the daughter of a Grantham greengrocer thought in terms like that? Then your mind is already made up and no argument is going to change it.

And finally Point 5: Rioting amongst normally law abiding people? I'd question quite how much of the rioting crowds were made up of law abiding people but hey i'll let that one slide right now. basically it was a mass hysteria that had very little to do with actuality and a hell of a lot more to do with misunderstanding and propaganda, the poll tax is raised constantly by Thatcher-bashers and ive lost count of the number of times ive asked them why it was bad and been met with 'Well.. it just was, it was like unfair and stuff', most of the people ive talked to about it didnt have the first clue about the details, they had been swept along in a popular idea without paying much attention to why. im not lumping all people who were anti into that camp just the people ive personally had experience of.

In short I stand by the argument that it was a good idea, poorly executed and badly public managed. I do however find it hilarious that the party who first allowed those 'beastly proles' to buy their first home through the sale of council houses and gave so many people the first true independance they had ever had in their lives are so often portrayed as the enemy of the common man. No, come to think about it its not hilarious, its quite depressing.

Originally posted by Kentonio

Point 1: You do have a point about the charging of the fee to the unemployed, I believe it was part of an attempt on her part to lessen the number of unemployed by making unemployment less attractive to the long term unemployed. Before I get anyone savaging this statement btw I just want to mention that back then several of my older brothers friends were long term unemployed and freely admitted that they were completely uninterested in getting a job because there was no point, the council paid for their flat and gave them enough to live on and get drunk at the weekends on, they just couldnt see the point in working for a living. Incidentally even though the benefits are now proportionately lower one of my closest friends has the exact same attitude, something I have argued endlessly with him about. I think the bit about having to actually pay the bill yourself was again part of an idea of getting the unemployed to actually have to take responsibility for their own life rather than relying on the state to do everything for them. Dont get me wrong, I am more than aware that most unemployed people do wish gainful employment but there is a woefully underestimated number who dont, I truly believe these measures were more aimed at them than anybody else.


Then why did it also apply to students, full-time carers, those receiving disability benefits, and OAP's?