Under Blair, according to the Joseph Rowntree foundation, relative poverty fell by 20%. To achieve this, Blair had to attract moderate voters. But judging by some, this kind of politics is barely less evil than the Tories, despite the good it did.
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
Under Blair, according to the Joseph Rowntree foundation, relative poverty fell by 20%. To achieve this, Blair had to attract moderate voters. But judging by some, this kind of politics is barely less evil than the Tories, despite the good it did.
Hugh says #TakeOutaTory by voting tactically
And don't expect it to get much coverage either. This has been such an underhanded election it's beyond belief.
It'll get lost in all the other coverage of all the other things Labour, the Tories want to talk about... let alone Trump, Polls, Terror. That's just elections. (And it's why you need a relatively simple manifesto with simple communications lines around it, and you can't say that for Labour's).
You won't mind providing a source on that claim then, will you?
Despite the extremely negative press that Tony Blair and new labour get, mainly with hindsight and primarily the Iraq War, I strongly believe that it was a very progressive and successful government by any standards.
Not only child poverty, but they were the first to stipulate hospital waiting times, which were routinely achieved and were significantly tighter than now. And the investment in the terribly rundown schools has never been repeated.
Like always, you are never remembered for the majority of good but the minority of bad.
Labour have stated they recommend replacing IHT with a lifetime gifts tax. The figure for this has been suggested to be as low as £115k per beneficiary.
That figure would leave my children with a pretty large bill on my death.
Now, if wanting to leave each of my two children a small home with current values of approx £210k when I go up to the pearly gates is seen as contributing to inequality then I’m guilty. Otherwise I’m pretty happy with what I contribute to society and would happily pay more tax to fund better social care and public services.
From my perspective as a parent it is important to me that they will have a secure future once I’m gone. This is one way I can help and I want to
A simple manifesto should not be the the goal when the system is broken. The time for simplicity is when there is a working system that enhances the lives of those within it. The UK is yet to achieve that, there is radical change needed in so many aspects of British society that it is hard to convey that message to people who are too busy being overworked, underpaid and underappreciated. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try.
No, I meant he should apologise for voting Tory despite admitting he knows all the harm it causes, because he's paranoid that his kids might not get quite as much of the 2 houses he wants to leave them in a few decades time. I'd apologise to all the people who will suffer so that these kids get to keep the houses they'd get to keep anyway.
Is there a Norovirus Party. Oh yes. The Conservatives.
If they win we will all get a dose of the sh1ts.
Plenty on google Raven, it was all in an interview he did for the Financial Times I believe I’m early september and one also for the BBC on or around the same day.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....-McDonnells-Right-Buy-buy-let-homes-work.html
And the recent watering down
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/71fc2948-0890-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67
Why are you so against this policy that doesn't exist, but completely fine with people being able to do the same from housing associations and councils thanks to the Tories?
We'll see if this approach works after the election I guess. But I'd say a simple manifesto that helps win power to begin to change things, is better than an ambitious one that doesn't (especially if the electorate doesn't especially trust you).
Last edited:
New Labour were very successful in a lot of ways. They invested heavily in public services, education and grassroots sports, just to name a few of the good things. However you are understating the damage they did as well, they shifted the political spectrum to the right, got us involved in illegal wars, which have had repercussions on British soil and deregulated. New Labour played there part in this mess too, but it seems to be the price of power.
I don't think trying to shame people for voting differently to you helps tbh, it just builds resentment. Better to engage him, or others in his position, and explain why Labour isn't after ripping the roof from above their head.
The caf will be pleased to know I somehow managed to hold my nose and send in my postal vote for Labour. Put it in the postbox before I had a chance to change my mind.
Just extend London all the way to Manchester. Oh and of course
Last edited:
I think New Labour was the only way a 'Labour' branded Government could get into power in 21st century. Same remains today. It certainly made me feel like I had a legitimate place in the party, I joined up and became politically active for the only time in my life.
It was broadly successful vis a vis its aims, but Iraq and its aftermath is unforgivable at all levels, and so all of Blairs achievements (of which there were many) are dirty and tarnished. Its other issue was the Blair/Brown power struggle which meant Blair was never able to purely execute his vision . (You know all of this).
The momentum crew may find 'new Labour' a dirty compromise to their deeply socialist views (dominant in this thread), but IMO Labour will never ever win a majority with such a limiting positioning because it does not have majority relevance in 21st Century UK. Labour must move towards the centre for any chance to govern.
Last edited:
It probably doesn't but it's Monday and someone keeps claiming that they are hard done by because a policy that doesn't exist might impact their ability to own multiple houses whilst I've already seen 5 homeless people today despite having only spent about 30 minutes outside.
Bloody immigrants should go back to where they came from.
In all my life I have never agreed with this policy Shamwow. It decimated the the market gardening village I grew up in. Pretty much all of the council housing stock disappeared overnight.
The political spectrum was already shifted to the right, Thatcher did that, so they were operating in that context for sure. I happen to think it is possible to have both a New Labour style social policy and a foreign policy that doesn't mean you are forever obliged to invade Iraq.
(By the way, always bringing up Iraq is a way for the socialist left to downplay Blair's other achievements and the success of a more moderate left approach, as it suits their own agenda.)
Last edited:
I used to work for Unilever and know the person who created this and launched this concept. He was British born and from Indian originsBloody immigrants should go back to where they came from.
I'm really not sure where it says you will be affected. It has always been maintained that Labour are not going after people like you. They are not trying to usher in communism, people will still be allowed to have businesses, people will still be allowed to own property, but people won't be allowed to take advantage of people, as a lot of people are now.
What does that have to do with him? Are you implying he is at fault for other peoples homelessness in any way?
Illegal wars plural?
New Labour understood the reality of British politics. To win 3 elections you simply have to appeal to the majority of the electorate. And yes. You are probably right. That is the price of power.
Another really significant point. Since the Tories came to power, we have had (for example) 6 Justice Secretaries. During the Tony Blair government we had 2.
Stable government gives you stable cabinets.
I ask you. Who knows who is supposed to be in charge of the various departments.
Seems weird to call the Labour manifesto populism without any thought or analysis when you compare it to the Tory manifesto.
Labour's manifesto is a radical departure from the status quo and a reshaping of our economy, the culture of business and the role of the state with a positive new vision for the nation. You might disagree with the vision, but I don't think you could call it thoughtless. The fact that their policies on nationalisation, taxation, foreign policy and the NHS are supported by the majority of the population is surely a good thing and goes to show that for most of the past 40 years the voices of the majority of people have been totally ignored.
By comparison, populist policies with no thought or analysis appears to be the perfect description f the Tory manifesto. Crammed with policies designed to win a few votes rather than fundamentally tackle the issues of rising inequality, homelessness, climate change, foreign policy, anaemic growth, non-existent investment and crippled public services. They are a status quo party and as the IFS said, austerity is 'baked in' to their manifesto.
Take their pothole fund for example. That is the definition of a policy that will win a few votes but totally misses the bigger picture and screams of a party out of ideas beyond 'getting Brexit done'. And I mean that almost literally - the first five paragraphs of their manifesto after the intro all start with the phrase 'Get Brexit done'. Similarly, their foreign policy section is all vague platitudes about how proud they are of our armed forces and our history for good in the world totally missing any substance or commentary on the indiscriminate murder we are an accessory to in Yemen.
You might not be a Tory voter, so the comparison may be unneccssary but it seemed remarkable to me that somebody would describe the Labour manifesto as populism with no thought when the Tory manifesto is basically the perfect example of a document that's been focus groupped to death.
I'm not sure what a left or right wing Brexit is to be honest. I've seen left wing people want to leave without a deal and right wing people wanting to remain. I've seen liberals not want to be part of the EU due to their discriminatory immigration practices and totalitarians wanting to be part of the EU due to future tax harmonisation. I genuinely don't think Brexit can be defined as left or right.
After reading both parties proposals I would say that the current Labour party is a totalitarian left wing socialist party and the current Tory party is a totalitarian centre right conservative party.
I do agree with you in a sense that you can't change anything without first getting into power. I don't think it will make any difference though, if the Tories get into power this time, they'll be finished. The post Brexit recession will destroy their party and push voters left.
If he votes Tory then yeah he will be partly at fault.
Minister admits Tory policies may be a cause of rising homelessness
https://www.theguardian.com/society...-admits-tory-policies-blame-homelessness-rise
Record number of people sleeping rough in London
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/31/record-number-of-people-are-sleeping-rough-in-london
Child Child homelessness surges by 80% under Conservative-led government, figures show
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...dation-conservative-theresa-may-a8928291.html
Don’t believe the Tories – homelessness isn’t falling
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/01/don-t-believe-tories-homelessness-isn-t-falling
Forget Brexit, the homeless crisis will be the Tories’ shameful legacy
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...e-the-conservatives-shameful-legacy-wt5d5pcxn
Last edited:
Spoken by someone with knowledge, understanding and clarity of thought. Such a rarity nowadays.
I agree with all of this.
My only divergence is that I do in some ways understand the thinking behind supporting the American led war on Iraq.
That is not to say that I agree with it but it is a fact that Bush W was going to attack the Sadam Hussain regime for a range of reasons. And the Blair government thought it better to try to moderate Bush intentions by standing by him.
Yes it probably was a mistake. But. I for one do not think that it was the sole cause of Islamic State.
New Labour jumped into bed with all the same people the Tories are connected to. That was the problem, they had no choice but back things like the Iraq war and deregulation. Political lobbying is a filthy game and should be one of the first things that any future government clamps down on, more in terms of transparancy than outright banning it.
They will only be finished if there is a viable alternative.
And for that to happen, Labour will have to reorganise itself as a party that the majority of the electorate would be prepared to vote for.
Amstrad!!Because Volumiza has stated his main reason for voting Tory is because of the extra home. He made the causal link himself.
So Hugh Grant is a yellow Tory?
Iraq was 100% a choice (one I did not agree with at the time) he didn't need to make, so I don't excuse Blair for it. I understand the desire to remove Saddam - when you read about what a stunningly evil man he was, I can understand the moral imperative for someone like Blair (especially if he'd been more honest about it). And I can understand why he might have thought it was a relatively risk-free political "win". But those aren't good enough reasons to put soldier's lives in harm's way by themselves - let alone the disastrous outcome - and he should have never have done it.
- Status