Labour has been reasonably successful at bringing the very poorest out of poverty, but apparently there is now less equality of opportunity than at any time since the 1970s. The poor may be surviving, but they're not getting educated and getting rich.
Labour's 'choice agenda' will add to the problem. It's always the educated middle classes that excercise choice in public services, and once money starts following those choices it will simply exacerbate the inequalities that already exist. Ditto with foundation hospitals.
Tuition feels are not going to help either. One of my main worries is that no one is going to want to enter teaching or social work or nursing or any of other such important but underpaid profession because the onus will be on getting a job lucrative enough to pay back the debts. We will end up a nation of accountants and management consultants.
And then there's the human rights abuses and the war and the failure to fulfill promises on the environment. I'm quite happy with more taxes on fuel and cigarettes though. And in Britain it's actually cheaper in real terms to run a car than it was 20 years ago, so there's still plenty of scope for more.
Rich.
Originally posted by hjpI actually think the Labour government has done OK, as I don't have crazy expectations of them agreeing with me all the time, and instead think of what the alternatives would be. One has to accept, for example, that all sensible governments will favour slow and incremental change, because if they go too far the conservative public will get very upset. On the whole I think the government has done bad things which were in some sense understandable and good things which were often flawed, but at least led in the right direction. My first general election vote will probably go to the Lib Dems if they've got a good chance of winning the seat, otherwise Labour, because the Tories are still just plain bad at the moment.
I for one am fed up with the Labour party today. For many reasons, probably exaustively disscussed before on other political channels, the labour party is increasingly detatching itself from modern Britain. I think now that it has now detatched itself from a large proportion of the population now that it now does not represent a democratic representative of this ...[text shortened]... ormance seen already be Labour in government, is it now time to elect another government?
hjp
On the bad side:
- The war on Iraq was a big mistake, and Blair fooled himself and the country about the justification due to his infatuation with Dubya. As a result I would rather someone else took over the leadership, but you can't blame this one on the whole party, and the Tories would have done just the same. I forgive the Labour party of being conned by Blair, because so were a large proportion of the public.
- PFI is a big fat accounting scam, nothing more or less, but it's also something the Tories were planning to do. Still, the government needs to be confronted in no uncertain terms and called to explain why the government is practically throwing money down the drain so they can pretend that they're borrowing less than they really are. It annoys me that the media hve let this slip by them.
- Labour's been cowardly when it comes to Europe and explaining the benefits to people, allowing Euroscepticism to fester (look at UKIP!) If we vote against the Constitution due to government incompetence at explaining it, it could have serious ramifications.
- The government's gone a bit psychotic with law and order, but unfortunately this seems to be what people want, eg elderly people who think that youths standing around and talking constitute a menace to society. I would hope for a more liberal policy if the Lib Dems ever got to power, but I wouldn't bet on it.
- Foot-and-mouth was a cock-up, and the rural tourist industry was never compensated for its losses. Unfortunately the government was in a bit of a bind, because very few countries are prepared to import vaccinated animals/meat.
- The government's approach to post-18 education is too focused on universities. They need to do much more to fund vocational courses and reduce the stigma artisans such as plumbers seem to have in this country, rather than encouraging absurd numbers of people to study Psychology, Media or Forensic Science. On the other hand they need to make a real effort to get more people to do Maths and Science at university, or this country's technological development will slow drastically or even go backwards, taking the whole economy with it, and we'll end up with a generation who think it's all the fault of evil Science, and that vaguely-defined Nature-worship or aggressive Christianity or Islam is only way forward.
On the good side:
- The Chancellor hasn't done a bad job of running the economy, with a long period of sustained growth and low inflation and his 'carrot and stick' approach to unemployment starting to pay off. Of course, this could be all thanks to how wonderful British companies are, but I think Brown can take part of the credit.
- Contrary to popular belief, the government has increased taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor, and it's done more to improve public-sector income than the Tories did. It's just that their efforts have been rather subtle and insufficient, because they have to appease key middle-income voters about taxes.
- The minimum wage has increased the income of millions of low earners. It might not be as high as it could be, but I somewhat doubt that the Tories would have introduced it at all.
- As a student, I actually think top-up fees are a big step in the right direction: instead of a system where everyone pays for universities, including those who haven't got degrees, we'll have a system where graduates contribute to the cost of their education (not the whole cost by any means), and only when THEY (not their rich/poor parents) start earning money, often in jobs they couldn't have got without a degree. It also has incentives to encourage people from really poor backgrounds to go, namely they'll get all their fees and some of their living expenses paid for. Besides, the government couldn't politically afford to finance our overstretched universities any other way. If I was running the scheme, I'd make the student loan big enough to cover living expenses, reduce the amount graduates on modest income had to pay back and pay off the debt of teachers and medics, but I agree with the general idea of the policy (which, btw, is similar to the Scottish scheme that people keep saying is better than tuition fees).
- the government has shown it's prepared to consider new ideas in how health and education are run, rewarding good hospitals with increased power to run their own affairs, and taking action to deal with failing schools. While some of its ideas are just plain bad (eg PFI), mostly it's about pragmatism, eg in education 'special measures' only come in if the current system clearly isn't working.
- the government has created a form of gay marriage, banned fox-hunting, and reduced parents' 'right' to hit their children. In all cases the government made mistakes and ran into difficulties, but they were certainly moves in the right direction.
Originally posted by RedmikeThe unemployment rate in the UK IIRC is outperforming many of the western nations that are in the same boat. I know they're doing much better than the U.S. The "global economic feature" has been a recession led by the Bush Administration's economic policy towards high deficits to support a select few key industries (namely defense and oil.)
Where to start.......
Low unemplyment is mainly a global economic feature. Sure, New Labour didn't deliberately stoke high unemplyement for ideological reasons like Thatcher, but they don't get the credit for it being low. Ditto lower in ...[text shortened]... e NHS compete with? Sounds like market-oriented mumbo-jumbo to me.
As for good social justice, cannot they get some credit for the minimum wage? I have to admit as an American that when the issue came up I was shocked there wasn't one in the first place. And at least they're actually addressing anti-social behaviour, something that has proven to work but too many governments don't actually address because it's not a flashy issue.
And I think Blair deserves some credit for putting together an organized and electable progressive party (even if a lot here don't agree that it is progressive enough.)
Try being in the United States. The Democratic National Committee has the organizational skills of the Cincinnati Bengals. It is a complete farce and as a result the far right controls every facet of national government. They're already moving forward to scrap Social Security (pensions in british-speak) in favor of a "have-only" system where everyone must invest in the stock market to have a retirement plan (those who don't know anything about investing are left with a blank stare, myself who has a small understanding is thinking 1929). And the Republicans are basically going do the same thing on health care where the government will force deductables to go through the roof (somewhere around $5000, as compared to a fluxuating rate of $500 now) because it promotes "people taking better care of themsleves" according to Newt Gingrich who is putting the plan together for the Bush Administration (just think about that for a second - an elementary school classmate of mine was born with a hole in her heart. So it's gotta be her fault!)
These are all rediculous plans that the government over here is going to be able to put forth unencumbered because we don't have a party like Labour. In fact that the Democrats make the Tories look fantastically effective.
Oh, by the way - my two classes at a publically-funded university in the state I live (which means I get the lowest rate possible) will be $3000 for two classes. Might be a tad unfair for me to say that I'm not that sympathetic on the tuition issue, but hey ;-) I know everyone is ticked off about tuition fees, but trust us from this side of the planet - it won't prevent those whose actual goal is to go to college from getting there. Those programs are in place. It just pisses off more of the middle-class folks who enjoyed having it handed on a silver platter. This might be unpolitic to say, but it just might genereate more motivation to do well. I know that was the case for me (early years were paid for, now I'm paying.)
If you guys don't like Blair, we'll gladly take him over here.
Now I'll agree with most people here about him not standing up to Bush on Iraq. But the reality is that a Labour government in office is a hell of a lot more attractive than the alternative. Obviously the Tories are a joke - the best Michael Howard can do each week with his six questions is ask Blair about his latest tiff with Gordon Brown - yet interestingly he can't come up with an actual issue to address without getting his keister handed to him. Kennedy does a fantastic job of addressing the issues even if his calculator keeps malfunctioning. This outsider's perspective is that the best scenerio for Britain is a Labour government but the Lib Dems getting to the dispatch box, allowing them much more reign in pushing actual issues instead of the unfocused grandstanding of the Conservatives.
Align me with Acolyte, but then again I'm just a spectator on the sidelines. :-)
Originally posted by stammerA spectator you may be, but you're an incredibly well-informed one... I worry you may have an unhealthy obsesssion with the British political system. But yeah, your analysis is pretty sound. And I'd love the Lib Dems to become the official opposition, although unfortunately I think the Tories will get themselves together sufficiently to maintain the status quo.
The unemployment rate in the UK IIRC is outperforming many of the western nations that are in the same boat. I know they're doing much better than the U.S. The "global economic feature" has been a recession led by the Bush Administration's economic policy towards high deficits to support a select few key industries (namely defense and oil.)
As for g ...[text shortened]... servatives.
Align me with Acolyte, but then again I'm just a spectator on the sidelines. :-)
A question for you: could you explain the Republicans' health plans? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by deductables - is this the amount you'd have to pay before state aid kicks in? Sounds pretty scary.
One thing that puzzles me about American politics is that the Republicans seem to get plenty of votes from less educated workers and then completely screw them over as soon as they get in power. Why don't people get more upset about this? And I thought it was the British who were supposed to meekly accept our lot.
Rich.
Let me address the second question first.
The class thing tends to be a bit overblown. In the U.S., the political divide is more geographical rather than class-based. For example, the midwest doesn't understand the pollution problems of the northeast because of the rural-urban distinction. They don't deal have the smog issues that we northeasterners do. But when national pollution laws are effected, then their costs go up but they can't see the benefits.
Also, because of the low per-capita nature of the great plains, there is less a sense of interdependance and more focus on independance. A communities social connection comes through the weekly gatherings at church.
In the northeast and other heavily-populated regions, the natural tendancy is towards teammwork to accomodate everyone.
This is why the Democrats do well in regions where interdependance is king and the Republicans are entrenched in the independant-minded regions. Where the two cultures meet is in the suburbs, or the "swing" regions where both parties are competitive and where close races are decided.
Now your first question, here's how our health system works:
Health insurance is entirely private. For most people, there is no state involvement. We do have a program called Medicare, but that helps only the elderly and those on welfare. If you're a regular working bloke, you have to pay for your own insurance.
Health insurance can cost a few hundred dollars a month. Typically about $300-$450 a month. Your standard full-time employer will usually pick up a good chunk (about %75) with the employee picking up the rest.
Now, of that plan, there is a deductable. This is the portion a person pays before the insurance company has to start paying.
Of course, a company is not required by law to provide health insurance. As a result, those who work lower end jobs such as minimum wage gigs often are not offered that benefit by their employer, as the company tries to contain costs. At minimum wage, the weekly paycheck is around $250 per week BEFORE taxes for a 40-hour week. Now you can see why 43 million Americans do not have any form of health insurance. A friend of mine was a landscaper, but ran his own business. Since that was the case, he either had to pay all of his health insurance costs or live without coverage. He chose the latter. When he ended up in the hospital, he was stuck with a $150,000+ bill and will have to file bankruptcy.
Most Europeans look at this and see that it's inhumane - that there's no justification for not having a national health care system. The problem over here is the effectiveness of our government. The heads of government departments are not given the job because they're qualified, they get the gigs because the elected officials hand them the spots for patronage purposes.
As a result, the resources given to a particular deparment are skewered towards benefitting those who are in power and provide only as much as is needed, alloting the rest of the resources to well-paying administrative jobs. And they need to reap benefits quickly, because a person may only be able to hold that job for two years - when the next election occurs.
This is the basis for the anti-government mood in most of our country. Privatization, believe it or not, provides a lot more stability. The British have elections at a maximum term of five years but typically four and changes of the party in control is infrequent. Not so here - as soon as one is elected, everything is geared towards the next election rather than governing. This is why I appreciate the British system: there seems to be more emphasis on governing in Westminster than Washington.
OK, that's really interesting. Further question though. The reason I thought you were referring to Medicare when you were talking about deductables is that I assumed the Government would have no control over the way private companies ran their policies. So, how come there's suddenley going to be this big increase in the deductable? Was there previously a legal maximum of 500 dollars which the Republicans have just increased? And why would they want to do that?
You're right though, I do find the US health care system scary. It just doesn't seem to make any allowances for bad luck. At Christmas I fell over a recycling box, knackered my hand and ended up going into hospital four times to get it sorted. It was rather nice not to have to pay a penny.
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyThe healthcare industry has become a state-regulated (regulated by each of the states, not Washington) industry as a result of its importance on society.
OK, that's really interesting. Further question though. The reason I thought you were referring to Medicare when you were talking about deductables is that I assumed the Government would have no control over the way private companies ran their policies. So, how come there's suddenley going to be this big increase in the deductable? Was there previously a ...[text shortened]... to hospital four times to get it sorted. It was rather nice not to have to pay a penny.
Rich.
There are maximum increases each year set by the state, so there is control by government. They don't control the deductable per se - each plan has multiple levels where the user gets to choose the level of deductable (which impacts how much is paid per month.) But they can loosen the strings to allow insurance companies to come out and say "your deductable is now $5000, here's how you can offset it through these tax-free accounts."
What the Republicans are trying to enforce is what they're calling private-savings accounts where workers can save their income in tax-free accounts that would be used to pay for health costs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/business/yourmoney/16newt.html?oref=login
This is a good article on the issue involving Newt Gingrich. As is usually the case, Newt has some excellent ideas but it only works for certain parts of society and it does not benefit America as a whole.
Originally posted by steerpikeIt does have a hint of irony if you really want to see it but the reality is they cannot be directly compaired.
Tell me - do you see any irony in telling us in the first paragraph you paid nothing for your university education - and in the second, whining about bludgers and scroungers?
To explain - Univeristy was free to everyone (no fees) so no one could abuse the system and claim poverty, illness, circumstances to obtain something for free that everyone else paid for. Whereas all government benefits are not given to everyone and are totally open to abuse, therefore some people bludge to get something for free which everyone else decides to work for.
Bit clearer for you?