Govt Defeated-Cons Losing Election More Likely

grizzly1911

StevieJ wrote: »

True, they were just, a more or less facsimile of the Tory party

Even got the tie right.

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

That's a complete myth that needs debunking. It is true that they, and Blair in particular, sucked up to big business for reasons best known to themselves. But here are things that happened under 13 years of New Labour which are completely un-Tory :- selling off gold reserves at a very low price, raiding private pension funds, unrestricted immigration, complete capitulation to the EU including giving up a chunk of the EU rebate for nothing in return, creating a totally inadequate regulation regime for the financial sector, dumbing down of state education, packing the NHS with bureaucrats and allowing it to become 'non-caring', perpetrating the human rights farce, allowing the welfare bill to spiral out of control, inflating the public sector to no benefit to the country, encouraging creeping political correctness, encouraging multiculturalism, creating the client state thus buying votes with taxpayers' money.

They were no Tories.

Doubtful if we would have noticed the difference if they were.

NHS bureaucrats:-

The Great Charm Rat government reforms

The 1980s saw the introduction of modern management processes (General Management) in the NHS to replace the previous system of consensus management. ,,,,, This recommended the appointment of general managers in the NHS with whom responsibility should lie. The report also recommended that clinicians be better involved in management. Financial pressures continued to place strain on the NHS. In 1987, an additional £101 million was provided by the government to the NHS. In 1988 the then Prime Minister, ******** ********, announced a review of the NHS. From this review and in 1989, two white papers Working for Patients and Caring for People were produced. These outlined the introduction of what was termed the "internal market", which was to shape the structure and organisation of health services for most of the next decade. In spite of intensive opposition from the BMA, who wanted a pilot study or the "reforms" in one region, the untried untested internal market was introduced.
In 1990, the National Health Service & Community Care Act (in England) defined this "internal market", whereby Health Authorities ceased to run hospitals but "purchased" care from their own or other authorities' hospitals. Certain GPs became "fund holders" and were able to purchase care for their patients. The "providers" became NHS trusts, which encouraged competition but also increased local differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Health_Service_%28England%29

Of course it was all Labours fault again.


Poor regulation in the Financial Service Sector:-

Did that start in The Great Charmers Era too? :think:

Global banking and capital market services proliferated during the 1980s after deregulation of financial markets in a number of countries. The 1986 'Big Bang' in London allowing banks to access capital markets in new ways, which led to significant changes to the way banks operated and accessed capital. It also started a trend where retail banks started to acquire investment banks and stock brokers creating universal banks that offered a wide range of banking services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking

What is wrong with multiculturalism by the way?

Can't be bothered to look for any more.

They are all as bad as each other but these might help.

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

No doubtful if we would have noticed the difference if they were.

NHS bureaucrats:-

The Great Charm Rat government reforms

The 1980s saw the introduction of modern management processes (General Management) in the NHS to replace the previous system of consensus management. ,,,,, This recommended the appointment of general managers in the NHS with whom responsibility should lie. The report also recommended that clinicians be better involved in management. Financial pressures continued to place strain on the NHS. In 1987, an additional £101 million was provided by the government to the NHS. In 1988 the then Prime Minister, ******** ********, announced a review of the NHS. From this review and in 1989, two white papers Working for Patients and Caring for People were produced. These outlined the introduction of what was termed the "internal market", which was to shape the structure and organisation of health services for most of the next decade. In spite of intensive opposition from the BMA, who wanted a pilot study or the "reforms" in one region, the untried untested internal market was introduced.
In 1990, the National Health Service & Community Care Act (in England) defined this "internal market", whereby Health Authorities ceased to run hospitals but "purchased" care from their own or other authorities' hospitals. Certain GPs became "fund holders" and were able to purchase care for their patients. The "providers" became NHS trusts, which encouraged competition but also increased local differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Health_Service_%28England%29

Of course it was all Labours fault again.


Poor regulation in the Financial Service Sector:-

Did that start in The Great Charmers Era too? :think:

Global banking and capital market services proliferated during the 1980s after deregulation of financial markets in a number of countries. The 1986 'Big Bang' in London allowing banks to access capital markets in new ways, which led to significant changes to the way banks operated and accessed capital. It also started a trend where retail banks started to acquire investment banks and stock brokers creating universal banks that offered a wide range of banking services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking

What is wrong with multiculturalism by the way?

Can't be bothered to look for any more.

They are all as bad as each other but these might help.

If you can't appreciate what is wrong with multiculturalism there's not a lot of point in continuing the thread to be honest. I haven't got the time or inclination to whack out a post of the length it would require to cover that adwequately.

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

If you can't appreciate what is wrong with multiculturalism there's not a lot of point in continuing the thread to be honest. I haven't got the time or inclination to whack out a post of the length it would require to cover that adwequately.

Nice side step.

NHS bureaucracy and Bank deregulation all the fault of labour too still.

Tancred

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

If you can't appreciate what is wrong with multiculturalism there's not a lot of point in continuing the thread to be honest. I haven't got the time or inclination to whack out a post of the length it would require to cover that adwequately.

You either love it or hate it - enough said.

DecentLivingWage

So here comes ukip, nige galloping like richard 111 into eastleigh?

Moby

A._Badger wrote: »

And neither is 'call me Dave'.

So what exactly are true blue tory policies in your view?

johnny_storm

The Cons can win, all they have to do is enact the changes the people want. The simplest one would be an EU referendum this year or next, if he does that I can guarantee him a land slide majority.

But since we have a very undemocratic democracy, he wont do this, so deserves to go. Sadly the other choice will not represent the majority either, so tbh the whole thing is a farce.

grizzly1911

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

So here comes ukip, nige galloping like richard 111 into eastleigh?

Is that really likely?

Cons were a very strong second last time round?

drc

All the parties are basically the same nowadays, so it won't make much different to the taxpayer who wins. We are all going to be screwed whoever gets in.