Why Labour are better than the Tories..

[Brighteye]

On the numbers game within the NHS, schools and employment, it's going to be hard to convince you. For example, I sincerely believe that the greater amount of money invested in the NHS has resulted in better services, and I believe this on the basis of stats, personal experiences, and the experiences of others. But our expectations are always rising, along with the cost of treatment, and the age of the population. I'd suggest the NHS would be entirely on its knees if the government hadn't pumped the extra cash in that it has, but, frankly, there is so much newsworthiness in any health issue (such as MRSA) that the media portrayal of the NHS is pretty much unremittingly negative. It thus doesn't surprise me that the government doesn't get credit for the investment it has made.

I won't argue about the housing stuff, since you clearly know more. I'll take it as you say.
But I do know numerous people who work in the NHS, since I had tutorials and lectures with them during my degree, and I also have made a number of visits of my own to hospitals, both to visit my mother, for work and to visit friends.
The standard of care has not improved for many years, seen from my mother's point of view. She still has nurses injecting her with the wrong drugs and ignoring her acerbic comments (escalating to shouts of alarm) about their errors. Patients are still ignored for hours on end when they need help; drug doses are far more frequently missed entirely than given to the wrong person.
Nurses are overworked and many of them do not speak the language well enough to communicate with patients, even sane, rational and clear ones such as my mother.
My mother's doctors very much enjoy talking to me, probably because I know enough biology to understand everything they say, more like a medical student than a pesky family member, and when I get them off-topic they confide that things don't seem much better.
Two people in my lab work in a hospital too. Positive reaction? No.
Old medical friends? Absolutely scathing.

It's not just the big NHS stories, it's personal contact. When I take someone to A+E, they're 'seen' in 4 hours. That's better than the 6-8 hours it took on some occasions that I broke my arm as a child. But after being seen, they're not treated: they're moved to a different waiting room and left until people really do have the time to deal with them.
What a lot of difference that target did! Wasting doctors' and nurses time by imposing artificial constraints, and misleading patients about what to expect. Hooray!
Everywhere you look in education, employment and health you can see the same thing: targets giving nice statistics, but actually being meaningless because the statistic has been made more important than what it is supposed to measure, and pursued without any real gain in what matters.

That is Tony Blair's legacy, and if I knew more about economics (or read Private Eye) I'm sure I'd have examples in other areas too.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Why exactly do we want to help both parties at the Tories' expense? Is that sort of political self-interest really a good reason for pushing through something as important as PR?

The reason to have PR is to give the Parties an amount of seats which equates to the amount of votes they recieved.

 

[Rossiya]

Why Labour are better than the Tories..

Why Labour is as bad as Tories...

 

[Brighteye]

The reason to have PR is to give the Parties an amount of seats which equates to the amount of votes they recieved.

That's a fair aim, but our current system has good points too, such as representation by area.
Labour are nowehere near as good as the Tories. I rank them so far below the Lib Dems and Tories that to look up from their perspective makes everyone else look the same.
It is frustrating that in the next election a huge proportion of people will vote Labour simply because that's 'what one does', without considering their incredible failings. A smaller number will vote Conservative for the same reason. If only we could work out which voters were in this category and which were not, I'd advocate ignoring all of them, which would probably place the three parties much more evenly.

 

[StarWorms]

I see alot of focus on the negative aspects of 'Blairs legacy'....i.e the Labour government since 1997. Whilst this is perfectly understandable, I don't thinbk we should forget about why we got rid of the Tories for Labour in the first place. It hasn't been all bad under Labour.

We've had...

- A war which was justified, i.e. Kosovo

- The introduction of a minimum wage, something the Tories bitterly opposed

- Huge investment in public services such as education and the NHS

- Move of cannibas from class b to class c

- Debt releif for Africa

- Gay civil patnerships

- Giving the Bank Of England operational independance in setting of intrest rates

- An end to 'boom and bust'

Now, i'm not saying the Labour government has been good. What I am saying is that it has been way better than a Tory government would have been. I am dissapointed with New Labour and at them about many things. But i'll never forget just how bad the Tories are at core. None of those things would have been carried out by the Tories (well except maybe Kosovo which they would have probably screwed up) and voters shouldn't forget that.

It's impossible to put any of that into context - we don't know what would've happened in the last 10 years if the Tories got in. Who knows? Maybe things would've been better, maybe worse.

 

[ComradeDavo]

It's impossible to put any of that into context - we don't know what would've happened in the last 10 years if the Tories got in. Who knows? Maybe things would've been better, maybe worse.

Without those things being done then it would have worse, plus our economy would not be in such a good shape.

Why Labour is as bad as Tories...

I hear this alot from people (especially my Dad) but I don't think thats a fair assumption.

That's a fair aim, but our current system has good points too, such as representation by area.
Labour are nowehere near as good as the Tories. I rank them so far below the Lib Dems and Tories that to look up from their perspective makes everyone else look the same.
It is frustrating that in the next election a huge proportion of people will vote Labour simply because that's 'what one does', without considering their incredible failings. A smaller number will vote Conservative for the same reason. If only we could work out which voters were in this category and which were not, I'd advocate ignoring all of them, which would probably place the three parties much more evenly.

I don't know how anyone who beliefs in the wealfare state and ideas of personal freedoms can rank Labour below the same Tory party who opposed minimum wages and introduced section 28.

 

[StarWorms]

Without those things being done then it would have worse, plus our economy would not be in such a good shape.

You've got proof of this? We don't know what things would have been like with the Tories. Life isn't just about the things in the OP - there are many more things that can sway the balance.

 

[ComradeDavo]

You've got proof of this? We don't know what things would have been like with the Tories. Life isn't just about the things in the OP - there are many more things that can sway the balance.

TheTories would not have done the thigns I mentioned in the OP because they either opposed them or were not moving on them. I talk about the economy because it's been improved since Labour were in charge, no more boom and bust. Need I mention Black Wednesday as a classic example of Tory economics in the 90's?

And the war is what Labout gets hit on so much and the Tories supported it arguarbly more firmly than the Labour party did.

I'm just about old enough to remember the joy people felt in 1997 at the end of the Tory era, and today I still hear people older than me talking about why they ditched the Tories in the first place.

 

[StarWorms]

TheTories would not have done the thigns I mentioned in the OP because they either opposed them or were not moving on them. I talk about the economy because it's been improved since Labour were in charge, no more boom and bust.

First of all - policies are always changing. How do you know that the Tories wouldn't have changed their policies on those areas in the last 10 years?

Economies increase over time anyway.

 

[Rossiya]

I hear this alot from people (especially my Dad) but I don't think thats a fair assumption.

When in doubt, always look to your father. (And me)

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Labour are nowehere near as good as the Tories. I rank them so far below the Lib Dems and Tories that to look up from their perspective makes everyone else look the same.
It is frustrating that in the next election a huge proportion of people will vote Labour simply because that's 'what one does', without considering their incredible failings. A smaller number will vote Conservative for the same reason. If only we could work out which voters were in this category and which were not, I'd advocate ignoring all of them, which would probably place the three parties much more evenly.

Happy to accept that your experience of the NHS is far different from mine, and sorry to hear that your mother has had such a bad time of it.

To say that "Labour are nowhere near as good as the Tories" you'd have to have something to compare the government against. Given that Cameron has (quite sensibly, IMHO) avoiding going into much detail about policies, the only detailed comparison you can make is with the last period of Conservative government (as CD is doing in the OP). In which case, I think you need to point out which areas you feel that that government was superior to the current one. There's certainly an argument to be made there, but it's not likely to be one based on civil rights, economic stability, or investment in the NHS and education.

The point about people just voting for Labour without thinking is quite funny in a way - this was exactly the complaint used by us left-wingers during the 80s as we got kicked around election after election. Eventually, some of us realised that people invariably vote for a real reason, and that the different ways people felt about the two parties was significant - just rubbishing the electorate as not understanding what they're doing when voting is a recipe for election defeat after election defeat (and it's not a mistake which Cameron is making, btw).

 

[Lambert Simnel]

First of all - policies are always changing. How do you know that the Tories wouldn't have changed their policies on those areas in the last 10 years?

Pretty unlikely if you know the people and the rhetoric from the time. If you remember, John Major's Tories had so run out of things they actually wanted to change, they were left with making more toilets available on motorways a major plank of their legislation at one point. The Tories pre-97 would never had rescinded Section 28, and would never have introduced the minimum wage - and the only reason they may have changed to accept some of the points Davo listed is precisely because they have been stuffed at three successive elections. If they had won those, then the right wing of the party would have still be in control, and they just would have had no reason to budge on any of these issues.

 

[ComradeDavo]

First of all - policies are always changing. How do you know that the Tories wouldn't have changed their policies on those areas in the last 10 years?

Economies increase over time anyway.

Lamberts post answered that well....

Pretty unlikely if you know the people and the rhetoric from the time. If you remember, John Major's Tories had so run out of things they actually wanted to change, they were left with making more toilets available on motorways a major plank of their legislation at one point. The Tories pre-97 would never had rescinded Section 28, and would never have introduced the minimum wage - and the only reason they may have changed to accept some of the points Davo listed is precisely because they have been stuffed at three successive elections. If they had won those, then the right wing of the party would have still be in control, and they just would have had no reason to budge on any of these issues.

 

[Brighteye]

I don't know how anyone who beliefs in the wealfare state and ideas of personal freedoms can rank Labour below the same Tory party who opposed minimum wages and introduced section 28.

Labour are the party who stand up for civil liberties and personal freedom? Oh yes, try a funnier lie next time. Sir Menzies puts it best, but Labour seem to have no regard for civil liberties whatsoever.

 

[Mise]

Labour are the party who stand up for civil liberties and personal freedom? Oh yes, try a funnier lie next time. Sir Menzies puts it best, but Labour seem to have no regard for civil liberties whatsoever.

He didn't say they stood up for them, he said they were better than the Tories. Which is true...

What irks me is that people keep criticising Labour for being pretty much the same as the Tories, but then claim that the Tories wouldn't have done all the crappy things that Labour did

 

[ComradeDavo]

He didn't say they stood up for them, he said they were better than the Tories. Which is true...

Exactly.

I think it's well establishe don these forums that I think the Lib Dems stand up for personal freedoms the most.....

 

[Brighteye]

The example that springs to mind is over allowing police to hold people without trial. This was something that was heavily criticised by both Conservatives and the Lib Dems.
I know that ComradeDavo is soft on the Lib Dems. So am I (to a lesser extent). I'd far rather that they got the extra votes I'd like them to have from disgusted Labour supporters than from trying to steal Tory voters by pretending that there could possibly be something worse than Labour.

 

[ComradeDavo]

The example that springs to mind is over allowing police to hold people without trial. This was something that was heavily criticised by both Conservatives and the Lib Dems.
I know that ComradeDavo is soft on the Lib Dems. So am I (to a lesser extent). I'd far rather that they got the extra votes I'd like them to have from disgusted Labour supporters than from trying to steal Tory voters by pretending that there could possibly be something worse than Labour.

The problemis though our electoral system. Of course in Lib Dem vs Labour seats, or 3 way fights, I'd say vote Lib Dem. But in all the Tory vs Labour seats i'd say vote Labour (unless it was a relaly bad MP like Hoon).

 

[Abaddon]

They are both as poop as each other, but the conservatives are historically the winning party. 20-30 years of conservative rule ends with sex sleaze,, labour after 10-15 with money sleaze. They concervatives give us a better eonconmy, less of a "nanny-state" but needs to be reigned in ever so often to ensure the lower socioeconomic groups do not get left behind.

 

[ComradeDavo]

They are both as poop as each other, but the conservatives are historically the winning party. 20-30 years of conservative rule ends with sex sleaze,, labour after 10-15 with money sleaze. They concervatives give us a better eonconmy, less of a "nanny-state" but needs to be reigned in ever so often to ensure the lower socioeconomic groups do not get left behind.

Less of a nanny state? Nah. For every Tory that believes in personal freredoms theres 3 who don't.

Historically winning party? Don't think so. Labour have had it's fair share of victores. 1945 being a big one of note....