Labour Leadership Contest

(17-08-2015 10:05 )HEX!T Wrote:  thing is it just goes to show how ill informed the public are.
fact is under labour real borrowing went down and gdp went up and was holding steady until the banks pulled the rug out.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/e...er-labour/ (just 1 of many sources that refute the governments claims for austerity.
the cons got in and over stated the size of the problem and are using lies and misdirection to implement there agenda of stripping the public of its assets.

if you were around in the late 70'80's and early 90's you will remember how bad it got. unemployment at record highs (9 million+ at 1 point). people working 70 hours a week for as little as 75p an hour. 1 in 3 hospital beds empty because the nhs didnt have the staff. reduced policing numbers to the point some estates in the north became no go zones. 40+ kids to a classroom, education budget slashed. all of this was corrected under labour. yes they got a few things wrong but on the whole the country never had it so good under tony (war criminal)blair.
why dont the people get this? because there being fed lie after lie by the media who are currently lobbying cameron to get the bbc's public funding removed so murdock can spread even more lies...

I was born in the 80's and lived in Trinidad until '89 so I only little child starting school. the first 3/4 years of the labour government followed the tory budget plan then 2000 Gordon brown took over, also he and ed balls took powers away from the bank of England to the treasury and formed the toothless FSA.

labour increased the use of PFI schemes which were all off the books, also Gordon Brown did the most stupid thing in the 1990's announcing that he was selling a large of the gold reserves when the price was at it's lowest then the price drop further after the announcement. labour bloated the public the sector.

like i said they did get some things wrong. but on the whole we had increased growth lowered unemployment, more schools, hospitals police and fire services, introduction of a minimum wage and so on. over all you could see people were better off, spending more with lower crime.

While labour did get one or two things right during their 13 years in power, they got an awful lot more things wrong. Their so-called economic growth was fuelled by massive consumer spending and a housing boom, this was paid for by allowing people access to easy credit and cheap mortgages forcing house prices up and creating an unsustainable housing bubble. When the banking crisis hit and the bubble burst millions of people were left with negative equity on their properties and unable to pay their bills. Those who could manage to get by dramatically reduced their spending therefore shrinking the economy and putting thousands of small businesses out of business. Labour were warned by many leading economists that they were building a house of straw but choose to ignore that advice.

(18-08-2015 02:36 )HEX!T Wrote:  like i said they did get some things wrong. but on the whole we had increased growth lowered unemployment, more schools, hospitals police and fire services, introduction of a minimum wage and so on. over all you could see people were better off, spending more with lower crime.

The unemployed figures were manipulated by putting long term unemployed on Incapacity benefit especially in places like north wales and northern england thats why people on these benefits have been getting a hard time for the past 5 years. at the height of new labour 7.4 % of the working age population was on incapacity benefits and not part of the unemployment figures

most of the problems with housing stock was created by the inactivity of new labour for the 13 years they were in power

^The coalition government and now the conservatives have been manipulating the unemployment figures in similar ways over the past 5yrs, to try and justify the so called 'success' of their austerity measures. When really it is just an excuse to kick people when they are at their lowest ebb.

It does not matter which party is in power they all quite happy to manipulate the figures to back up whatever bullshit they want us to believe, Blair and Brown did it when they were in charge and now Cameron is carrying on the good work. I really cannot understand why the electorate believe there is any difference between the major parties when the only people who seem to remain unaffected or even improve their lot in life in times of major economic upheaval are the politicians in charge.

(18-08-2015 17:35 )HannahsPet Wrote:  

(18-08-2015 02:36 )HEX!T Wrote:  like i said they did get some things wrong. but on the whole we had increased growth lowered unemployment, more schools, hospitals police and fire services, introduction of a minimum wage and so on. over all you could see people were better off, spending more with lower crime.

The unemployed figures were manipulated by putting long term unemployed on Incapacity benefit especially in places like north wales and northern england thats why people on these benefits have been getting a hard time for the past 5 years. at the height of new labour 7.4 % of the working age population was on incapacity benefits and not part of the unemployment figures

most of the problems with housing stock was created by the inactivity of new labour for the 13 years they were in power

sorry mate you got anything to back this incap claim up. as far as i know, you couldnt be moved onto incap if you were unemployed and fit for work. unless you signed off for at least 13 weeks and get your doctor to sign you sick. only then could you be considered for incapacity benefits. so i dunno where you got your info from but from what i know its wrong.
im not doubting that figures were manipulated but im sure it wasnt in the way you claim.
i have looked for the evidence myself but i cant find anything other than propaganda and a few student papers with very little in the way of statistics to back it up.
even the office of national statistics has rubbished the dwps claims about the amount in incap claimants which a lot of articles published were based on.


@lance mate go read my link. it explains why people were encouraged to borrow. record low interest rates meant the government could borrow more and payback less in real terms which helped spur growth.
just saying they borrowed more isnt the whole picture.
if they were borrowing at high interest rates then yeah it would be an issue in real terms borrowing could be increased but interest payments were reduced.
end result was growth of the economy for 13 years straight.

(19-08-2015 00:27 )HEX!T Wrote:  

(18-08-2015 17:35 )HannahsPet Wrote:  

(18-08-2015 02:36 )HEX!T Wrote:  like i said they did get some things wrong. but on the whole we had increased growth lowered unemployment, more schools, hospitals police and fire services, introduction of a minimum wage and so on. over all you could see people were better off, spending more with lower crime.

The unemployed figures were manipulated by putting long term unemployed on Incapacity benefit especially in places like north wales and northern england thats why people on these benefits have been getting a hard time for the past 5 years. at the height of new labour 7.4 % of the working age population was on incapacity benefits and not part of the unemployment figures

most of the problems with housing stock was created by the inactivity of new labour for the 13 years they were in power

sorry mate you got anything to back this incap claim up. as far as i know, you couldnt be moved onto incap if you were unemployed and fit for work. unless you signed off for at least 13 weeks and get your doctor to sign you sick. only then could you be considered for incapacity benefits. so i dunno where you got your info from but from what i know its wrong.
im not doubting that figures were manipulated but im sure it wasnt in the way you claim.
i have looked for the evidence myself but i cant find anything other than propaganda and a few student papers with very little in the way of statistics to back it up.
even the office of national statistics has rubbished the dwps claims about the amount in incap claimants which a lot of articles published were based on.

I got them from official figures http://researchbriefings.files.parliamen...N01420.pdf

and no you didnt have to sign off all you needed was a sick note from your doctor for the 13 weeks you got the same as jobseekers allowance and then after 13 weeks you got the higher rate.

dont get me wrong im not against people doing this had a few family members do this a few times and its a shitty system to go thru but i was making the point labour did it so they could massage the figures

Think it got so bad in 2007-8 that Labour actually created the Work Capbability assesment and contracted ATOS to do it with targets to get claimaints down. everyone blames the torys for this but it was a New Labour Creation

yeah they only go back to 2000 which makes them look pretty bad. add in the previous 5 years to 95 and you will see the numbers were on a downward trend. as for the wca yeah thats true but it was actually a rebrand of what went before. except you had to complete a medical. previous to that you went in front of a tribunal, i know this because in 1997 i went through it. needless to say i lost.

anyways heres some basic figures for unemployment from 1995 till 2015, they make for sober reading.


source: tradingeconomics.com


source: tradingeconomics.com

Tom Watson has become the deputy leader of the Labour Party

And Jeremy Corbyn has been elected the leader with 59.5% of the overall votes in the 1st round