CHARLES CLARK FIRED

I've noticed Labour's party political broadcasts are pointing towards how much better things are now then when the Tory's were in.

Sadly people tend to be measured on their failures more than their sucessess.
So he he makes the least mistakes, seems to do Ok.

Personally I don't agree with the notion of not voting therefore not having a voice, I think there should be a box when voting thats states no confidence in any of the parties. That would make for interesting reading.

My grandfather once said, this country needs a dictator.

Ridculous as it may seem, I think he had a point.

Originally Posted by DanDare

I've noticed Labour's party political broadcasts are pointing towards how much better things are now then when the Tory's were in.

Sadly people tend to be measured on their failures more than their sucessess.
So he he makes the least mistakes, seems to do Ok.

Personally I don't agree with the notion of not voting therefore not having a voice, I think there should be a box when voting thats states no confidence in any of the parties. That would make for interesting reading.

My grandfather once said, this country needs a dictator.

Ridculous as it may seem, I think he had a point.

Its already measured. Its measured in "spoilt ballots". I.e ballots that are ruined, writing all over them crossing all three parties etc.

They allow for 25% of all spoilt papers being fake - i.e. people just messing around, but the remainder of the spoilt ballots are classed as votes of no confidences in all the parties available.

The government takes note of this figure - but i find it difficult to comprehend what those "votes" will change.

Originally Posted by Daimo

Petrol was cheap

Not by the cost of living standards back then. Its cheap if you compare price then to price now, but you also have to factor in wages were less, everything was less back then.

People didn't have babies just to get the social

This was as much a problem for the Major government as it is now. Britain has had one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe for a long time. This isnt just a Labour improved benefits cause.

Immigrants, what were those....????

Allow me to point you to a book: Bloody Foreigners by Robert Winder. A history of immigration of the British Isles from the Celtic migration through to present day. Britain has always had waves of migrants arriving throughout its history. Again not something thats a Labour problem. Or necessarily a problem.

This country is aging and people are not having as many children. Without migrants to fill the jobs this country would be a lot worse off. People often look negatively on migrants - but thats only a small proportion that are here illegally. Most come here from middle class, working backgrounds in their own country as these are the only people who can really afford to do it.

Without migrants we wouldnt be able to buy anything after 6pm. Its those migrants willing to keep late night shops that allow you to have a take away or go shopping. Theyve changed our trading hours for the better tbh.

Taxes were lower

Ok, now a subject I REALLY know what Im talking about. What you have to remember is there is a difference in how Labour and the Tories have taxed us. Labour have traditionally done it via PAYE - so it comes out of your pay and its easily seen how much youre paying.

The Tories tend to cut PAYE - so you think youre paying less tax. However, it was they who raised the VAT rate to 17.5% - you can thank Norman Lamont for that one. It was the Tories that intoduced the Landfill tax, the Climate Change Levy, extended the scope of VAT on goods previously zero rated. You may have paid less out your wages, but I assure you paid a damn site more VAT than before.

Labour have in its government actually decreased the VAT rates to 5% on a number of goods. So saying taxes were lower isnt strictly correct. PAYE probably, VAT definitely not.

National heath was better

No argument there.

Speed cameras were not around

You sure?

Edit* Actually Im that sad I went and checked this because Im sure they came in around the time the Tories were still in. 1992 saw the first cameras installed.

We had no terrorists, as we didn't just go to war on them, everyone done their own thing.

So tell me what the IRA bombings in Hyde Park, Birmingham, Victoria, Canary Wharf, Natwest Tower etc were about then. We have always been subject to terrorism since the IRA campaign began in the sixties.

Desert Storm and our involvement was in 1991 [Tory government]. Technically it wasnt going to war over terrorists but Saddams invasion of Kuwait. Either way, both ultimately are over the same issue - oil.

Originally Posted by getyerkneedown

Its already measured. Its measured in "spoilt ballots". I.e ballots that are ruined, writing all over them crossing all three parties etc.

They allow for 25% of all spoilt papers being fake - i.e. people just messing around, but the remainder of the spoilt ballots are classed as votes of no confidences in all the parties available.

The government takes note of this figure - but i find it difficult to comprehend what those "votes" will change.

Thats interesting, I never realised that about spoilt ballots.
I thought its just where people didn't mark it correctly enough, I would of thought if you weren't gonna vote, you wouldn't bother going to the polls.

Lesson learned here.

Originally Posted by Daimo

Speed cameras were not around

I don't know whats worse with speed cameras, the fact they go towards to Police Chief's retirement fund or the fact a Frenchman invented them.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Daimo

People didn't have babies just to get the social
Immigrants, what were those....????
National heath was better
We had no terrorists

1) yes they did
2) All over the place
3) No it wasn't- it offered far less services and despite the spin, waiting times and conditions were frequently worse.
4) Are you ****ing INSANE?

Coming back to 3), people fail to understand that today's NHS offers a huge number of expensive treatments that were unavailable 5, 10 and 15 years ago. People are treatable when before they'd have died, which is expensive. People are treatable when before they'd have been crippled, which is expensive on the NHS but cheap for everything else. Lives can be extended massively- look at AIDS/HIV treatments, this is massively expensive but the results are huge.

And every time you extend a life under treatment, you incur ongoing costs- it was far cheaper to have an AIDS victim die of pneumonia than it is to medicate them for a decade.

Or take me... Far cheaper to stick a hip replacement into someone and leave them to it, than to use the new traction techiques to fix them better- the figures on my op and post-op care are something like 10 times the cost of a simple hip replacement (because of the more complex surgery, higher standard of training, and the far greater level of physio), but it's massively better and has potentially no long term impact.

There's a lot that's wrong with the NHS, but there's a huge amount that's right.

Originally Posted by northwind

1) yes they did
2) All over the place
3) No it wasn't- it offered far less services and despite the spin, waiting times and conditions were frequently worse.
4) Are you ****ing INSANE?

Coming back to 3), people fail to understand that today's NHS offers a huge number of expensive treatments that were unavailable 5, 10 and 15 years ago. People are treatable when before they'd have died, which is expensive. People are treatable when before they'd have been crippled, which is expensive on the NHS but cheap for everything else. Lives can be extended massively- look at AIDS/HIV treatments, this is massively expensive but the results are huge.

And every time you extend a life under treatment, you incur ongoing costs- it was far cheaper to have an AIDS victim die of pneumonia than it is to medicate them for a decade.

Or take me... Far cheaper to stick a hip replacement into someone and leave them to it, than to use the new traction techiques to fix them better- the figures on my op and post-op care are something like 10 times the cost of a simple hip replacement (because of the more complex surgery, higher standard of training, and the far greater level of physio), but it's massively better and has potentially no long term impact.

There's a lot that's wrong with the NHS, but there's a huge amount that's right.

I think we should just privatise the entire NHS... completely break it down - not just the one like bupa - but i mean totally - i like they did to rail. Completely strip the whole lot bare and sell it off - it will drive down prices, waiting lists will be a thing of the past.. FANTASTIC!

The operations can be subsidesd to the different organisations by our NI contributions which we will continue to pay.. i.e. if you have an op - the cost of that op is claimed from government by the firm which did it... but because there is so much competition, the costs of these ops will be far lower than they are now, cos everyone will be fighting to maximise their profits.

GYKD for health minister!!! Whos with me.....


Anyone?

Sod that keep the NHS in the shambles it's in. As long as they're cancelling operations due to lack of funds I can jump to the fromt of the queue with my private medical cover because the surgeon isn't doing any NHS work

Originally Posted by getyerkneedown

I think we should just privatise the entire NHS... completely break it down - not just the one like bupa - but i mean totally - i like they did to rail. Completely strip the whole lot bare and sell it off - it will drive down prices, waiting lists will be a thing of the past.. FANTASTIC!

The operations can be subsidesd to the different organisations by our NI contributions which we will continue to pay.. i.e. if you have an op - the cost of that op is claimed from government by the firm which did it... but because there is so much competition, the costs of these ops will be far lower than they are now, cos everyone will be fighting to maximise their profits.

GYKD for health minister!!! Whos with me.....


Anyone?

Not me. If you fundamentally believe privatisation means driving down prices then you are mistaken. Bought a GNER ticket lately that wasnt a month in advance? Tell me how cheap a trip to London is from York if you dont get lucky and get one of the advanced savers. It is certainly NOT cheap.

The problem here is you're presuming there will be competition. But very few companies would form and they would just be privatised versions of existing departments. Far from being competitive and driving down costs there is the risk of monopolisation and actually INCREASING charges to customers

Point me to a privatised industry where costs have actually come down WITHOUT the government regulator imposing such cuts.

Thing to remember about the likes of GNER etc is that yes their prices have increases but so has their expenditure. Take a GNER liveried Intercity 125 - the old diesel burning ones. The cost of that fuel is staggering now compared to what it was like before it was privatised, so to cover those costs, the costs of ticket sales goes up respectively. Thats just one area where their expenditure has increased exponentially compared to their income.

If you look at telecommunications, since the de-regulation of that market, and the introduction of LCR (Least Cost Routing), and the more recent introduction of VoIP which replaces PABX/PSTN, the costs of making telephone calls entered freefall from the days it was all British Telecom.

The new technology such as VoIP came about as a direct result of competition on the telecomes market. Each company fighting to be the most advanced in its field. If it was still under BT, i doubt that VoIP would have entered the ranks of customer products as soon as it did.

Privatisation is a fantastic way forward, especially for business. By making it a free market you naturally drive prices down, increase technological development, and offer a better service to the customer, which is what its all about.

You also enhance the economy by making it a de-regulated market, as all of these firms which enter the markets in any given field, are taxed - thus providing extra revenue to the government which wasnt there under nationalisation.



This diagram shows how prices have been constantly driven down as a result of LCR (Least Cost Routing), CPS (Carrier Pre Selection).

Facts to back up what im saying can be found HERE