The Labour government's successes and failures?

[Каие]

I just wanted to open a thread discussing what the Labour Party did right and good, and what bad they did. Lets all compile lists and an explanation why, and discuss each other's propositions and opinions to compile a list of what they did right and good, and what they messed up on.

Right/Good decisions and successes

1. Minimum wage
2. Independence of the Bank of England
3. Freedom of Information Act
4. Abolishing hereditary peers in the House of Lords
5. Peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland
6. Mayor of London and Greater London Council
7. Devolution in Scotland and Wales
8. NHS overall improved - waiting times down
9. Not adopting the Euro
10. Civil partnerships for gay couples

Bad/Wrong decisions and failures

1. Buggered the economy
2. Taxes the minimum wage arguably at 70% (20% basic rate, 11% National Insurance, 39% tax credits)
3. Removed the regulatory powers away from the Bank of England and gave them to a quango, the FSA, ran by Brown's banker friends
4. Anti-terror laws and super powers for police (suspension of habeas corpus and detention without charge)
5. Large surveillance state (more cameras than half of Europe put together)
6. General deterioration and erosion of civil liberties and free speech
7. Iraq War - lied to the country and mismanaged the aftermath and occupation
8. Afghan War - awful management of the Army and War with no clear objectives and poor supplies
9. Gap between rich and poor widest in 30 years
10. Large bureaucratic waste in NHS, Education, Police and Civil Service
11. Too many taxes
12. Positive discrimination and political correctness policies
13. Immigration control
14. Discipline in schools
15. Promised referendum on EU treaties not delivered - overall more integration into the EU without public consent
16. Dithered on constitutional reform of the House of Lords
17. QUANGOS
18. House prices tripled. Bubble grew and grew.

That's just my opinion to start things off.

[Poach]

You've got it listed pretty well there actually.

Though I don't have a problem with the cameras and I don't see why people hate the idea so much, the majority do see it as a bad move.

The military situation particularly annoys me, stretching the military to breaking point and starving it of funds, you'd think they deliberately want to cripple our Forces for the next few decades.

One thing I'd like to add though, promotion of political correctness is awful: they've taken descipline measures from school, making teachers scared to actually do anything, for example. They've promoted multicultaralism wrongly, letting immigrants come in and build Little [Country of Origin] in towns and not integrating them.

[Babur]

1. Large surveillance state (more cameras than half of Europe put together)

on-topic I read in today's Guardian that Jack Straw might want to scale back some of the powers which the police have been given in the past few years.

[Denny Crane!]

I just wanted to open a thread discussing what the Labour Party did right and good, and what bad they did. Lets all compile lists and an explanation why, and discuss each other's propositions and opinions to compile a list of what they did right and good, and what they messed up on.

Right/Good decisions and successes

1. Minimum wage
2. Independence of the Bank of England
3. Freedom of Information Act
4. Abolishing hereditary peers in the House of Lords
5. Peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland
6. Mayor of London and Greater London Council
7. Devolution in Scotland and Wales

I don't see the minimum wage as a good thing personally. Why is the mayor of london and greater council of london a good thing?

Devolution is wonderful, listened to a good debate about just how much better wales has become because of it. Freedom of information has allowed us to see just how corrupt our politicians are which is a good thing.

I know you put beuracratic waste in as part of the NHS but the NHS has vastly improved recently despite that. I would expect that considering they literally threw money at it in bigger amounts than most people could conceive and a lot of it was wasted but we shouldn't ignore the fact that the health service in this country is still pretty damn good.

Bad/Wrong decisions and failures

1. Buggered the economy
2. Taxes the minimum wage at 70% (20% basic rate, 11% National Insurance, 39% tax credits)
3. Removed the regularly powers from the Bank of England and gave them to a quango, the FSA, ran by Brown's banker friends
4. Anti-terror laws and super powers for police (suspension of habeas corpus and detention without charge)
5. Large surveillance state (more cameras than half of Europe put together)
6. General deterioration and erosion of civil liberties and free speech
7. Iraq War - lied to the country and mismanaged the aftermath and occupation
8. Afghan War - awful management of the Army and War with no clear objectives and poor supplies
9. Gap between rich and poor widest in 30 years
10. Large bureaucratic waste in NHS, Education, Police and Civil Service
11. New Deal
12. Too many taxes
13. Positive discrimination and political correctness policies
14. Immigration control
15. Discipline in schools

That's just my opinion to start things off.

To much red tape, to much stress on business' because of this amongst other initiatives they've launched. I've just got one for the minute but I'll probably reel of 50 more when I can be bothered. Britain can be a hostile place to do business, more so now since Labour came in.

[Каие]

I don't see the minimum wage as a good thing personally.

I sincerely do. I remember pre-minimum wage days. Trouble is there are ways to get around the minimum wage, foreign workers I believe, which make it an enemy to some people. But businesses got used to it, and overall combats exploitation.

Why is the mayor of london and greater council of london a good thing?

Same reason devolution is a good thing. When Thatcher abolished the GLC in the 80's, Whitehall got a sudden burst of power and responsibility. They realised just how over centralised Whitehall was. London has some 13 million people living there, that is more than Scotland, Wales and Ireland put together. It needs to be decentralised and devolved to run better, and to take pressure away from the already massive, and inept, Whitehall.

Devolution is wonderful, listened to a good debate about just how much better wales has become because of it. Freedom of information has allowed us to see just how corrupt our politicians are which is a good thing.

Exactly.

I know you put beuracratic waste in as part of the NHS but the NHS has vastly improved recently despite that. I would expect that considering they literally threw money at it in bigger amounts than most people could conceive and a lot of it was wasted but we shouldn't ignore the fact that the health service in this country is still pretty damn good.

Indeed, I was going to put the NHS waiting times etc. on the list.

To much red tape, to much stress on business' because of this amongst other initiatives they've launched. I've just got one for the minute but I'll probably reel of 50 more when I can be bothered. Britain can be a hostile place to do business, more so now since Labour came in.

Agreed again.

[Yorkshireman]

Promised referendum on EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. Bare faced Liars.

[cristophe el perno]

Well done Rome, that is possibly the least partisan post I've seen from you, possibly ever. +rep.

To add to the failures, there are still hereditory peers in the House of Lords (there should be none), and the system of appointing life peers has proved to be highly suspect (cash for peerages etc.). Also, they ignored proposals for at least a partialyl elected upper house, and backtracked on their promise to take electoral reform seriously (progress has been piecemeal and confused).

I might as well mention Lisbon, because someone is going to at some point. I believe we were promised a referendum.

Also, centralisation of power with the Labour party has denied the conferences and ordinary party members a say on policy.

edit - Yorkshireman beat me to it on Lisbon.

[Каие]

Well done Rome, that is possibly the least partisan post I've seen from you, possibly ever. +rep.

I did use to support them you know. I follow some of Blair's ideology of the Third Way. Many in the Tory Party are fully blown Blairites, like Gove. Blue Blairites they're called.

To add to the failures, there are still hereditory peers in the House of Lords (there should be none), and the system of appointing life peers has proved to be highly suspect (cash for peerages etc.). Also, they ignored proposals for at least a partialyl elected upper house, and backtracked on their promise to take electoral reform seriously (progress has been piecemeal and confused).

Agreed.

Also, centralisation of power with the Labour party has denied the conferences and ordinary party members a say on policy.

I think that has always been the case to be honest, but it's not government business I'm afraid.

[I Am Herenow]

Abolishing hereditary peers in the House of Lords

Well, perhaps this was a good thing, but have the Lords not been stripped of practically all power now? Moreover, is there now any situation in which they can permanently veto a law (cf. fox hunting)?

Afghan War - awful management of the Army and War with no clear objectives and poor supplies

Perhaps the British and US forces' successes have been limited there to date, but surely you could not disagree that the Afghan War did have quite a lot of public support at the outset and had clearer reasoning behind its inception than the Iraq War?

New Deal

What was that, sorry?

Peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland

[...]

Positive discrimination and political correctness policies

Hear, hear!

I Am Herenow

[Каие]

Well, perhaps this was a good thing, but have the Lords not been stripped of practically all power now? Moreover, is there now any situation in which they can permanently veto a law (cf. fox hunting)?

Yes, they can not permanently veto anythign any more, only delay, but having a permanent and natural Conservative majority Lords is not justifiable in a modern Democracy.

Perhaps the British and US forces' successes have been limited there to date, but surely you could not disagree that the Afghan War did have quite a lot of public support at the outset and had clearer reasoning behind its inception than the Iraq War?

Actually a majority of Britons preferred a legal response, an extradition to war.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/m...121opinion.htm

What was that, sorry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal_(United_Kingdom)

-------------

I'd disagree with that. The fact was with the BoE indepdant, you had to create the FSA to regulate banks, which failed miserably. Not a direct consequence, but it did it's part in getting us into the recession.

Not strictly true, it is entirely possible to have an Independent Bank of England which retained it's regulatory powers. The problem arose when Brown chose to strip it of it;s regulation powers so it could concentrate on controlling inflation only. This led to an awful situation when the Bank of England was completely clueless to the practises of casino bankers. At the time of the independence, Tory shadow chancellor Lilly warned of the consequences of removing the regulation powers.

Again, i'm going to have to disagree. Good for the Scots and Welsh, but it's meant that the English get left behind, which is the majority of the population. Devolution in its current form just creates differences between states. If it were up to me, i'd give them a referendum instantly. Keep your parliament and become independant, or have it dissolved.

Again I disagree, Westminster and downing street was far too centralised, far far too centralised. The government was too big, it's impossible to fix every problem everywhere in the country from one office, Devolution was necessary. The problem you speak of isn;t with devolution but with the Barnett Formula which dictates how much funding Scotland gets. It is possible to have a fairer allocation of funds while retaining the practicalities of devolution.

Seems ironic when Labour is the working class party? Shame New Labour doens't seem to think like that.

Labour is not the party for the working classes, it's the party of them, yes, but not for them.

[Poach]

Perhaps the British and US forces' successes have been limited there to date, but surely you could not disagree that the Afghan War did have quite a lot of public support at the outset and had clearer reasoning behind its inception than the Iraq War?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I took what he meant was not the war itself (which I thought was a reasonable cause), but the management of the war: It's no secret that Britain's Forces are operating at near to breaking point, but the government hasn't allocated them any serious extra funding (I think they got some token mention in this or last budget?) to help them cope.

[Musthavename]

Independence of the Bank of England

I'd disagree with that. The fact was with the BoE indepdant, you had to create the FSA to regulate banks, which failed miserably. Not a direct consequence, but it did it's part in getting us into the recession.

Devolution in Scotland and Wales

Again, i'm going to have to disagree. Good for the Scots and Welsh, but it's meant that the English get left behind, which is the majority of the population. Devolution in its current form just creates differences between states. If it were up to me, i'd give them a referendum instantly. Keep your parliament and become independant, or have it dissolved.

Gap between rich and poor widest in 30 years

Seems ironic when Labour is the working class party? Shame New Labour doens't seem to think like that.

[Musthavename]

Agreed with your points on BoE independance and devolution Rome. However, this is why I would not class them as a success. They have not been implemented well. It's all well and good having a good idea, but if you implement it badly, it can only be deemed a failure.

[Kiljan Arslan]

umm KB* the Britain New Deal seems to have been deleted as an article

[Каие]

Agreed with your points on BoE independance and devolution Rome. However, this is why I would not class them as a success. They have not been implemented well. It's all well and good having a good idea, but if you implement it badly, it can only be deemed a failure.

I believe though it would have been worse if it wasn't given independence. Imagine massive inflation problems ON TOP of this current mess?

umm KB* the Britain New Deal seems to have been deleted as an article

Sorry that was my fault, I missed a part of the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal_(United_Kingdom)

[Каие]

BUMP this up. Any changes in recent weeks that people want to suggest?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Not adopting the Euro

How is that a good thing?

Discipline in schools

How is that a bad thing?

[Каие]

How is that a good thing?

The British government still has control over the British economy. That's a good thing.

How is that a bad thing?

lack of discipline.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

The British government still has control over the British economy. That's a good thing.

You should know better than me, that British monetary policy is formed by the Bank of England, which is independent of the central government, though supporting its economic policies. But national economic policies can still be pursued meanwhile enjoying the benefits of the euro zone. The main reason why GB didn't move on to the euro currency is that pound sterling is still the symbol of national sovereignity. It isn't a very strong argument, as other national currencies were symbols of sovereignity as well, and especially when euro rose against the pound, and is much more stabile than the pound.

lack of discipline.

Okay.

Otherwise, it's a good list.

[Yorkshireman]

The main reason why GB didn't move on to the euro currency is that pound sterling is still the symbol of national sovereignity.

So. Whats wrong with that ? I can't see how you can't understand why we want to keep our symbols of national sovereignty. Why do you have a problem with it, it does'nt effect you. All it means is that when you come here you spend 5 mins changing money, as we do in Europe.

I'll never ever understand the mindset of someone who thinks its a crime to want to retain your countries heritage.

Here's a few more reasons why we don't want to join the Euro and its nothing to do with national sovereignty. There are real arguements why we never joined. And yes, we do control the Bank of England considering its sate owned and the central bank of the UK.

Moreover, although the ECB has, on the whole, done a pretty good job, it has displayed marked characteristics which may be very unhelpful in current circumstances.

During its 10 years of existence, it has regularly been slower to respond to events than other central banks and less willing to change interest rates as aggressively.

And just think how bad things would be now if the UK had adopted the euro at its formation in 1999, as the europhiliacs then urged.

Our interest rates would have consistently been nearly 2pc lower than they in fact were. The result would have been an even bigger bubble in our housing market, leading to an even larger collapse and a deeper recession.

Second, it is all very well saying that the pound is now at a competitive level, but if we had already joined the euro the pound would not have been able to fall to this level.

And if we were to join it now, it would not be able to fall in future recessions – or to rise, if circumstances so required, as, believe it or not, some day they might. The simple fact is that there is no right exchange rate for all seasons. The key is to retain flexibility.

Without the recent 20pc fall in the pound, the UK's recession would be much deeper and much longer.

The ability of a more competitive exchange rate to boost activity is even more crucial when the capacity of lower interest rates to stimulate demand is impaired by the banking crisis.

Consider the plight of Italy. In time-honoured fashion, it has allowed its costs and prices to rise faster than the eurozone average.

The result has been a massive loss of competitiveness, both inside and outside the eurozone.

Traditionally, Italy got out of this sort of mess by devaluing. Now it is stuck with having to grind its relative costs down through the effects of depression.

It is all very well saying that a lower exchange rate imposes no discipline and the virtuous path is to suffer. For Italy, the virtuous path could be the road to disaster. If we were in the euro, that could be our fate too.

The key reason why the UK emerged from the Great Depression of the 1930s earlier than most major economies was that it left the Gold Standard early, and subsequently enjoyed a significant boost from a lower exchange rate and lower interest rates.

Similarly, the UK managed to shrug off the recession of the early 1990s only because the exchange rate fell sharply and we were able to set our own interest rates after the pound was ejected from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992

They, and we, are bound now to suffer from a deep depression of mood as well as economic performance. In such a frame of mind it is unwise to take radical decisions. The wise thing to do is to carry on until the mood lifts.

As one of those who was not taken in by the Brownian delusion of economic transformation, and has not experienced the associated yo-yoing of moods, let me say this: the eurozone is not going to have a picnic either.

Indeed, the strains will be intense and it is far from obvious that the ECB will be as imaginative and urgent as the Bank of England in seeking cures.

Grim though things will be here, eventually they will get better. Out of the debacle of the ERM exit, came a period of genuinely successful UK economic management and good economic performance.

It can happen again – provided that we retain control of our own affairs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...than-ever.html