Gordon Brown.....

[Woodsey]

Of your 3 we have:
1) Throw money at NHS while productivity falls.
2) Take credit for huge economic boom and blame the bust on other people.
3) Throw more money at public services while productivity falls.

I might be biased though!

1. Bollocks, the NHS has got a lot better despite the waste, I see it every day.
2. Ok its argueable about who started the good economy, but they kept it good for 10 years. Anyone who thinks the bust is labours fault is just delusional
3. Ok fair enough I don't know enough about this to argue with you.

As before, I am not a labour fan and will vote conservative, but they have done some good stuff. If anyone doesn't agree with that then they are probably not capable of making an impartial decision.

Labour created the regulatory environment that enabled the boom and the bust. Given that the boom was funded by an excess of cheap credit and that also caused the bust I don't see how they can be directly responsible for the boom but have nothing to do with bust.

On the NHS my point was that it's easy to improve things just by spending more money but it usually isn't a sustainable solution. Productivity has fallen in the NHS too which means we're getting less value for money.

On the first point no other government could have done any different.

On the second point, of course it easy improve things by spending money, but at least they did it, what else would they do? Whip the doctors and nurse to work harder? I don't know how your defining productivity, but services are way better across the board and there is no denying that, as I say I see it every day. And of course its sustainable or the tories wouldn't be ring fencing the money. I t could of course be spent better and that's what the tories plan on doing.........

What in your opinion are labour's top achievements?

[Bongo]

I don't define productivity I leave that to the ONS, but they say it fell in the public sector by 3.2% from 1997-2007. It also pointed out that the largest increase in spending was in healthcare and they suffered the greatest decline in productivity.

On the sustainable point the IFS pointed out recently that the parties would need to find huge amounts of cost savings:

"The IFS suggested that the Conservatives need to find £64bn in cuts by 2015 from unprotected areas such as education, housing, transport etc. They have not explained 82 per cent of this, or £52bn of cuts."

(Labour haven't explained 87% of cuts and LD 74% so all parties are guilty of this)

As Rex pointed out Brown as a "prudent" chancellor saved nothing during the boom too.

[Woodsey]

I don't define productivity I leave that to the ONS, but they say it fell in the public sector by 3.2% from 1997-2007. It also pointed out that the largest increase in spending was in healthcare and they suffered the greatest decline in productivity.

On the sustainable point the IFS pointed out recently that the parties would need to find huge amounts of cost savings:

"The IFS suggested that the Conservatives need to find £64bn in cuts by 2015 from unprotected areas such as education, housing, transport etc. They have not explained 82 per cent of this, or £52bn of cuts."

(Labour haven't explained 87% of cuts and LD 74% so all parties are guilty of this)

As Rex pointed out Brown as a "prudent" chancellor saved nothing during the boom too.

I don't care what the figures say, the NHS is miles better than it was 13 years ago, anyone who works for it will tell you that.

and this question?

What in your opinion are labour's top achievements?

[MANTIS01]

1. NHS - is generally a good system. But Labour pumped £120 billion of our money into it last year. It should be good. When they came to power in '97 NHS had 12 hospital beds per manager, today it has 4. Targets culture born.

2. Economy - after 13 years the country is £160 billion in debt. Why did Labour have nothing to do with that? Banks weren't regulated, gold sold at it's lowest price, overspending and poor value for money in every department, benefits culture.

3. Public Services - A trillion pounds spent.

And remember they're Labour's top 3 success stories. Fuck me.

[Bongo]

I couldn't list one... it might be because they've been in power all my adult life so it's hard to notice things they have improved. They've done lots of things I disagree with though (and they are far easier to notice).

[Woodsey]

I couldn't list one... it might be because they've been in power all my adult life so it's hard to notice things they have improved. They've done lots of things I disagree with though (and they are far easier to notice).

Fair enough, but that tell's me you are probably fairly one eyed, have decided who you want to vote for and aren't too open to other parties suggestions, hence your anti labour comments (I'm anti labour too). Its just LOL to think that a government hasn't done a single good thing in 13 years whether you support them or not.

Peace out..............

[Bongo]

I'm anti labour but open to other parties. In one of those who to vote for tests all the parties were about equal on +20 or similar except Labour on -50.

I'm a libertarian at heart and Labour is pretty much the opposite to that.

I think it would be easier to find things they'd done well if I had something to compare to, as it is the positives are probably taken for granted and the negatives glaringly obvious.

[nirvana]

What are the top 3 labour achievements in the last 13 years that improve the lives of a broad mix of UK citizens (not including those living entirely off the benefits system)

why not?

first thoughts were that they were obv better off so why include them in the straw poll.  Of course, could be completely wrong if I consider things like scandalously low penisons etc

[Woodsey]

I'm anti labour but open to other parties. In one of those who to vote for tests all the parties were about equal on +20 or similar except Labour on -50.

I'm a libertarian at heart and Labour is pretty much the opposite to that.

I think it would be easier to find things they'd done well if I had something to compare to, as it is the positives are probably taken for granted and the negatives glaringly obvious.

Fair enough...........

[nirvana]

Surely the social care system in this country is something we should be proud of?

Not especially -  it's a bit like being proud of having roads - I mean you kinda have to have certain things.

However, when money is spent on a road I can see what's been spent, I can see the practical benefits and I probably get more use out of it than a baby machine on a council estate.

If there were better ways to ensure that money arrived with people who genuinely need it I might take some pride - eg, A labour shibboleth is universal child benefits - I sure needed these when I had young kids - give the money to an OAP (or someone else who needs it) please.

My overall problem is trying to think of subsets of society that genuinely need social care. I can see that people who can't work through some debilitating mental health conditions may need help. I can also see that physically disabled people may need help on the basis that they have out of the ordinary expenses that many of us don't have. I struggle beyond that. If I was ever down on my uppers as long as my mental condition was OK and I was physically OK I would find work and I would adjust my lifestyle to the money that came with the work I could find.

Also, as regards the biggest drain - the NHS. I really just don't get the concept. I would like to have my tax back and make a choice of health provider just like I choose a car, a house, a packet of fags, a bottle of wine. I don't like thinking that I pay for this service to be provided to a bunch of non contributing pro gamblers for example.

It's just more equitable if we pay for the level of service we want, including a choice perhaps to opt into a state system

[Woodsey]

Surely the social care system in this country is something we should be proud of?

Not especially -  it's a bit like being proud of having roads - I mean you kinda have to have certain things.

However, when money is spent on a road I can see what's been spent, I can see the practical benefits and I probably get more use out of it than a baby machine on a council estate.

If there were better ways to ensure that money arrived with people who genuinely need it I might take some pride - eg, A labour shibboleth is universal child benefits - I sure needed these when I had young kids - give the money to an OAP (or someone else who needs it) please.

My overall problem is trying to think of subsets of society that genuinely need social care. I can see that people who can't work through some debilitating mental health conditions may need help. I can also see that physically disabled people may need help on the basis that they have out of the ordinary expenses that many of us don't have. I struggle beyond that. If I was ever down on my uppers as long as my mental condition was OK and I was physically OK I would find work and I would adjust my lifestyle to the money that came with the work I could find.

Also, as regards the biggest drain - the NHS. I really just don't get the concept. I would like to have my tax back and make a choice of health provider just like I choose a car, a house, a packet of fags, a bottle of wine. I don't like thinking that I pay for this service to be provided to a bunch of non contributing pro gamblers for example.

It's just more equitable if we pay for the level of service we want, including a choice perhaps to opt into a state system

You've done it now, run man, RUN while you can..............

[henrik777]

Labour sold us way short on the gold.

Tories sold Gas, electric and telecoms way to cheap. They also hurried with oil deals instead of listening to Benn which have put us nearer Norway than Zimbabwe in the financial stakes.

I wouldn't particularly trust either but i think Labour are more solid and less flash. Libdems i'm not sure of and maybe they deserve a chance but without a hung parliament they have no real power or chance.

Sandy

[nirvana]

Surely the social care system in this country is something we should be proud of?

Not especially -  it's a bit like being proud of having roads - I mean you kinda have to have certain things.

However, when money is spent on a road I can see what's been spent, I can see the practical benefits and I probably get more use out of it than a baby machine on a council estate.

If there were better ways to ensure that money arrived with people who genuinely need it I might take some pride - eg, A labour shibboleth is universal child benefits - I sure needed these when I had young kids - give the money to an OAP (or someone else who needs it) please.

My overall problem is trying to think of subsets of society that genuinely need social care. I can see that people who can't work through some debilitating mental health conditions may need help. I can also see that physically disabled people may need help on the basis that they have out of the ordinary expenses that many of us don't have. I struggle beyond that. If I was ever down on my uppers as long as my mental condition was OK and I was physically OK I would find work and I would adjust my lifestyle to the money that came with the work I could find.

Also, as regards the biggest drain - the NHS. I really just don't get the concept. I would like to have my tax back and make a choice of health provider just like I choose a car, a house, a packet of fags, a bottle of wine. I don't like thinking that I pay for this service to be provided to a bunch of non contributing pro gamblers for example.

It's just more equitable if we pay for the level of service we want, including a choice perhaps to opt into a state system

You've done it now, run man, RUN while you can..............

lol, just happens to be a good example of why a National Health Service that is all embracing is ridic unfair to the tax payer. There should definitely be more love for the tax payer, for example I pay the wages of a bunch of people, a small percentage of literally miilions of them. They don't thank me, they want me to be grateful they're there - well I'm not.

In fact you could argue that people who work in the public sector don't even really pay taxes, since they're only handing over what the 'real' tax payers gave them in the first place. Why go through the pretence of taxing them - just pay them a lower net wage.

At least this way they would realise they are freerolling and might be grateful to me.

ANother example of the nonsense of universal benefits like the NHS. Hypotehtically, I have an English friend who has zillions, has a green card, lives in the US and will never come back to live here. All his investments are now US based so he pays minimal tax here now. Does he insure himself for healthcare in the US. No, a cheap flight later and he can be treated here courtesy of the UK tax payer. It's just mad.

[Jon MW]

I don't define productivity I leave that to the ONS, but they say it fell in the public sector by 3.2% from 1997-2007. It also pointed out that the largest increase in spending was in healthcare and they suffered the greatest decline in productivity.

On the sustainable point the IFS pointed out recently that the parties would need to find huge amounts of cost savings:

"The IFS suggested that the Conservatives need to find £64bn in cuts by 2015 from unprotected areas such as education, housing, transport etc. They have not explained 82 per cent of this, or £52bn of cuts."

(Labour haven't explained 87% of cuts and LD 74% so all parties are guilty of this)

As Rex pointed out Brown as a "prudent" chancellor saved nothing during the boom too.

I don't care what the figures say, the NHS is miles better than it was 13 years ago, anyone who works for it will tell you that.
...

Yes it is miles better, but I think the point people are making is along the lines of - it's twice as good, but given the amount of money spent on it it should be ten times as good - hence the inefficiency argument.

(and obv twice and 10x are made up figures just to illustrate the concept)

[henrik777]

Those figures don't take in to account better treatment which has 2 issues.

1. It helps people live longer even if that requires more drugs/care.

2. The drugs/treatments are more expensive.

Sandy