MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I thought it would be handy if we could produce a list of positive things that these two parties have done over the last 100 years to make Britain a better place. That way we can have a nice list to judge the parties' track records by, to help select which party to vote for. I'm only after positive things, things that most of society can agree have made the countries better to live in, for instance the National Health Service, rather than things which are currently subject to widespread disagreement such as hunting with dogs.
So far I have -
Labour
======
NHS
Conservatives
=============
ok, it's not a very big list yet, so please add anything you can think of
aqueducts!
Sanitation!
Minimum wage.
NHS - I think the Tories did quite a bit to get the NHS going before Labour finalised it but the war got in the way.
When you say "done for us", do you mean "us - the masses" or "us - some people"?
I know (or rather I'm aware of) lots of people who made lots of money during the last conservative reign . . .
I'm on holiday the week of the election... what are my options, can I like prevote, quickly register for postal vote?
I always find this quite an interesting debate when looking backward - how far back is it legitimate or more importantly relevant to go back and still use when looking at the current political parties - for instance would current New Labour have put the NHS in place now - I suspect not.
Similarly, how far back is it legitimate to blame the conservative (Fatcha!) for things?
This will obviously be hugely relevant if the conservatives get voted in since as per the current government, everything will be blamed on the previous one even if it's well over a decade ago...
NHS - I think the Tories did quite a bit to get the NHS going before Labour finalised it but the war got in the way.
You mean they commissioned reports & studies that recommended some sort of social health system culminating with Beveridge's report during the war
When it came to actually voting for it - they fought the act in parliament, line by line & clause by clause in an attempt to stop it happening
Similarly, how far back is it legitimate to blame the conservative (Fatcha!) for things?
Think you can blame Fatcha for pretty much everything seeing as she was so influential that New 'Labour' basically carried on her philosophy.
Tories - Removed Thatcher. Surely the biggest contribution to the UK in the 20th Century?
Don't get a postal vote: they don't send them out in time for them to be returned from overseas. Get a proxy vote, if you can, and appoint someone at your favoured party's office.
Labour: NHS, implementation of Beveridge report, Human Rights Act, Scottish and Welsh devolution, minimum wage, Racial Discrimination Act, legalisation of abortion, Open University, Health & Safety at Work Act, Civil Partnership Act, Kosovo intervention, reform of House of Lords, London Mayor.
Tories: Cones Hotline.
(Of course, OP only asked what great things have been done, not what crap ones have been done - there would be a lot longer list in that case).
Willink was made a Privy Counsellor in 1943, the year he became Minister of Health. Willink served in this role until the Conservatives lost the 1945 general election. He, with John Hawton, was responsible for the 1944 White Paper, following the Beveridge Report, called A National Health Service. It proposed the creation of a fully comprehensive, universal healthcare system, free of charge and available to all citizens irrespective of means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Willink
Willink proposed a private health service not a nationalised one
The Tories wanted free health care for all and made some of the progress to what we have now.
What did the Romans ever do for us?
The Tories wanted free health care for all and made some of the progress to what we have now.
Not claiming the [i]idea[/i] was necessarily Labour's - just that they [i]actually did it[/i].
Erm, Mudshark, I'm a little confused:
When Labour came into office in 1945, they presented their own plan in preference to Willink's, although they had supported it up until that point. The principal difference was that Willink's plan talked of a "publicly organised" rather than a "publicly provided" service, whereas Labour's plan brought hospitals into full national ownership. Bevan did however make concessions to General practitioners. [b]Willink said in Parliament that the NHS would, "destroy so much in this country that we value[/b]."
(My bold)
Winston Churchill (Conservative) was vehemently opposed to the formation of the NHS.
The Conservative Party has always been an elitist party serving mainly a relatively wealthy minority. They hearken back to a time when only the elite (men) cold vote anyway. They've probably only survived so long because the Middle Classes of Britain have grown to such a significant group.
It does seem that Labour are winning in the 'what good have the parties ever done for us' stakes...
In one debate in parliament Willinck claimed [b][i]The NHS will destroy so much in this country that we value[/i][/b]
The Tories voted against the bill [b]51 times[/b]
Right, so far the suggestions are -
Labour
======
NHS
Immplementation of Beveridge report
Human Rights Act
Scottish and Welsh devolution.
Minimum wage.
Racial Discrimination Act.
Legalisation of abortion.
Open University.
Health & Safety at Work Act.
Civil Partnership Act.
Kosovo intervention.
reform of House of Lords.
London Mayor.
Conservatives
=============
NHS
Cones Hotline.
My emphasis is on the creation of free health care for all rather than the vehicle
Immplementation of Beveridge report
Is that a report into coffee and tea?
How about the Tories getting us out of the darkness that was the 70s?
Anyway, we all have our opinions and we'll vote accordingly and the democratic process will sort it all out - even if Labour do have an advantage in the way constituencies are split....
Is that a report into coffee and tea?
But what about Beer? Wines and Spirits? Soft Drinks? Milk?
Racist...
How about the Tories getting us out of the darkness that was the 70s?
Hmm, the Seventies seemed quite colourful to me...
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
The questions I have are are the current parties anything like those of history, and so is history an accurate indicator of the future, and since supporters of either side like to view their own party with blinkers and rose tinted specs, what's the point in voting other than in notional agreement (or disagreement) with historic aims and objectives, which may or may not be an accurate reflection of what actually happens when any party gains power?
How about the Tories getting us out of the darkness that was the 70s?
Indeed - no more coal mines [it was definitely dark down the pit] all closed for the sake of political dogma rather than economics
[img] 
[/img]
Conservatives: grants started to be phased out in favour of student loans.
Labour: university tuition fees. 😕
Conservatives: 'non pupil' (aka Baker) days.
Labour: class sizes down in primary skools.
neither have done anything that wasnt demanded of them by the people.
both have put themselves and their greed for power in the way of progress.
vote how you like the politicians will always win.
even the media cant tell left from right nowadays.
High-5s SOOBalais - exactly how I feel, although I put it more simply...
Different shades, but both smell of shit.
My emphasis is on the [b]creation [/b]of free health care for all rather than the vehicle
At the risk of being a monomaniac about this: the Tories didn't create it, (Old) Labour did.
A Tory, working as part of a national coalition government, may have developed a white paper in response to an inquiry undertaken at the request of a Labour minister, but that paper was significantly different to what actually emerged in the NHS Act in 1946, and it was the Labour government that pushed that act through.
You get 0 points for [i]suggesting[/i] going to the moon and 10 points for actually doing it. 😉
Different shades, but both smell of shit.
My father has a saying; [b]"Shit is the same on both sides"[/b].
He's not wrong.
konabunny - Member
Don't get a postal vote: they don't send them out in time for them to be returned from overseas. Get a proxy vote, if you can, and appoint someone at your favoured party's office.
Labour: NHS, implementation of Beveridge report, Human Rights Act, Scottish and Welsh devolution, minimum wage, Racial Discrimination Act, legalisation of abortion, Open University, Health & Safety at Work Act, Civil Partnership Act, Kosovo intervention, reform of House of Lords, London Mayor.
Tories: Cones Hotline[i].
And most of thats good?
And most of thats good?
Er, yes? 🙄
Hmm, well the Tories are all about creating wealth through private enterprise, and small government. So whilst the list of big things they've actually done governmentally could be small, their influence could be felt much greater in the wealth they created and the economic growth. Which would be harder to track down in the historical record. Perhaps a graph of GDP over time correlated with one of party in power? You might have to normalise it against some kind of global average tho to factor in things like the oil crisis/sub-prime etc.
Speaking as a left-winger, mind.
But +1 for civil partnerships - that just about sums up the differences in the parties besides financial or fiscal ones...
They havent got crappy adverts at the top of stw like the lib dems have!
Conservatives took us into the EEC - which you may have good/bad thoughts about 🙂
They havent got crappy adverts at the top of stw like the lib dems have!
I don't like that, it makes me feel very uncomfortable, the way this site 'knows' what we're talking about...
They're quite good at killing bills to suit their mates
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/13/cameron-pressure-identify-poverty-bill
The Conservative Party has always been an elitist party serving mainly a relatively wealthy [b]minority[/b].
[img] 
[/img]
I think someone needs to go and check the meaning of minority.
No matter which way one votes, its not a bad idea for everyone to remember that, certainly in the case of the main two parties, if you are going to make any insulting comments about a voter's intention then you are going to be insulting upwards of third of the population.
Most voters intentions are based on a broad opinion of the best government for the nation as a whole, not self-serving obsession.
Minority - less than half.
🙄
not quite TJ.
"being or relating to the smaller in number of two parts; "
the two parts need not make a whole. And my point was that for much of the last half century, conservative voters have number the same of more than labour voters, therefore not a "minority".
the point is the torries (and nu labour) do support an elite minority they just fool the rest of the populace into voting for them by waving around silly phrases like european beaurocrats, out of control immigration, deficit of doom and all the gibberish we will be bombarded with over the next month
Most voters intentions are based on a broad opinion of the best government for the nation as a whole, not self-serving obsession.
Amusing.
Since when did the Conservatives (or any party, for that matter) serve the interests of the majority of the electorate?
People are duped into voting on the basis of false promises and nice things. Most people rarely get a great return for their vote.
The ConservativeParty is an elitist party, always has been, probably always will be. The only section of society to ever really benefit in any significant way, from a Tory government being in power, are the wealthy elite. The rest are thrown scraps, to placate them. Sad thing is, too many people can't see past low interest rates, or cheap goods, to see the bigger picture. do you really think Cameron and his Chums really give a flying fig about people in housing estates in Blackburn or wherever? Course they don't! They're only interested in serving their own greedy selfish interests, let's be honest. The irony is, such folk might vote Tory because of what they (mis)believe the benefits will bring them. Mind you, Labour aren't much better, nor the Limp Dems (Nice one Kimbers). A sad sorry shower of shite the lot of them.
Is it time for a Swingometer yet?
Most voters intentions are based on a broad opinion of the best government for the nation as a whole, not self-serving obsession.
Ha ha! 😆
Very good!
Is there really any difference between the selfishness of MPs from any party? Some get into trouble for dodgyness whilst msot IMO are basically there to try and improve society. They just have different ways of going about it and often of what's most important.
The only section of society to ever really benefit in any significant way, from a Tory government being in power, are the wealthy elite
what rubbish.
do you really think Cameron and his Chums really give a flying fig about people in housing estates in Blackburn or wherever?
so you think IDS has just been swanning around the estates for fun these last 5 years then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Social_Justice
yep. that looks like the actions of someone who doesnt give a flying fig.
as I said above if you're going to go around patronising another party's voters you'd better realise you're insulting a lot of people. Probably members of your own family and friends. Bet you feel the big man.
IDS ?
Irritable Dave Syndrome
its like IBS only quieter.
Stoner
Of course the tories only act for the wealthy - that is their aim. Remember "trickledown"? The party of wealth and privilege.
I am sure IDS means well but nothing the tories have ever done improves the lot of the poorest people - infact the reverse is true and will be again if they get in again.
Cuts in public services - who uses them most - the poor.
You are the one being insulting - with your patronising attitude. Some of us can see thru the cant and bullshine of your beloved tories.
[img] 
?w=405&h=362[/img]
every time i see that picture i want to kill a kitten
If they're so concerned about social justice over bankers getting richer - why kill that bill I linked to earlier?
TJ, what's that picture meant to prove?
that i occasionally want to kill kittens ?
The problems of the sink estates are a direct result of the policies of the last Tory government. apparently their impoverishment was a price worth paying - and we are still paying now. Although thing haavce slowly improved since 97.
as I said above if you're going to go around patronising another party's voters you'd better realise you're insulting a lot of people. Probably members of your own family and friends. Bet you feel the big man.
Miaow...
Molgrips - that the tory party are the party of entrenched wealth and privilege.
so you think IDS has just been swanning around the estates for fun these last 5 years then?
Ah, IDS and the "Centre for Social Justice"...one of the greatest piles of stinking tory tokenistic (that's never a word is it?) shite in recent years. It's quite a worry that some of the ideas and reports it's published might actually be used in legislation in the near future. It's a 21st century "Back to Basics". You only have to read the list of publications e.g. "Why The Government is Anti Marriage" (yawn). The "quiet man" had to be bundled off to do something for fear of getting a whiff of leadership again. The fact that Frank Field (a parachute-pete) who I believe once described she who shall not be named as some kind of "hero" has involved himself with the "Centre for Social Justice" says it all for me.
Molgrips - that the tory party are the party of entrenched wealth and privilege.
Quite right, you'd never get Labour MPs coming from priveliged public school backgrounds.
The fact that I secretly fancy Frank Fields says it all for you too 😉
good grief trailmonkey - you cant possibly mean this lot can you?
* Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood)
* Hugh Bayley (City of York)
* Hilary Benn (Leeds Central)
* Bob Blizzard (Waveney)
* Chris Bryant (Rhondda)
* Stephen Byers (North Tyneside)
* Charles Clarke (Norwich South)
* Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
* Jim Cousins (Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central)
* Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West)
* Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)
* Louise Ellman (Liverpool Riverside)
* Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire)
* Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central)
* Barry Gardiner (Brent North)
* Linda Gilroy (Plymouth Sutton)
* Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East)
* Peter Hain (Neath)
* Patrick Hall (Bedford and Kempston)
* Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East)
* Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham)
* John Healey (Wentworth)
* Margaret Hodge (Barking)
* Geoff Hoon (Ashfield)
* Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)
* Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood)
* Sally Keeble (Northampton North)
* Ruth Kelly (Bolton West)
* Jim Knight (South Dorset)
* Ivan Lewis (South Bury)
* Martin Linton (Battersea)
* Ian Lucas (Wrexham)
* Denis MacShane (Rotherham)
* Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)
* Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley)
* John Mann (Bassetlaw)
* Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West)
* Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South)
* Bob Marshall-Andrews (Medway)
* Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton)
* Chris Mole (Ipswich)
* Julie Morgan (Cardiff North)
* Doug Naysmith (Bristol North West)
* Nick Palmer (Broxtowe)
* Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
* James Purnell (Stalybridge and Hyde)
* Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich)
* Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West)
* Andrew Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)
* John Spellar (Warley)
* Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes South West)
* Howard Stoate (Dartford)
* Gavin Strang (Edinburgh East)
* Mark Todd (South Derbyshire)
* Kitty Ussher (Burnley)
* Keith Vaz (Leicester East)
* Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North)
* Michael Wills (Swindon North)
* Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central)
* Shaun Woodward (St Helens South)
Molgrips - that the tory party are the party of entrenched wealth and privilege.
I just see blokes in costumes.
And as trailmonkey pointed out.. Labour pollies are almost as priviliged. What's your point?
So what %age of the population are wealthy and privileged?
So what %age of the population are wealthy and privileged?
all of them to the one just above me or to the one just below me, depending on your politics, naturally.
😯
[img] http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CLCGguXpu7__WxCsAhjvATIIaWdO27C-o9o [/img]
See! They're watching us!!!!
Come on Stoner - let's keep it on topic
Landmark legislation that the Tories have introduced in the last 100 years We've had quite an extensive Labour list, how about a similar Tory one?
Molgrips - perhaps then you should look into it to see what these people are about if you don't understand the difference. This is a very small elite that control the vast majority of the counties wealth.
You patronising arse TJ.
My point was that you are being anti-tory because of their backgrounds, (apparently) not because of what their policies are or how they think.
I am anti-tory because of the last two 🙂
and while we're in here, TJ, I would value your critique of this piece by Fraser Nelson:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5885398/why-we-shouldnt-confuse-poverty-with-inequality.thtml
I have a lot of time for Fraser Nelson, although the Speccy can get a bit too Daily Mail for me much of the time, he is a very lucid, analytical tory.
What's your view on equality and poverty? One and the same issue or not?
I like the naievity of those that think that the so called wealthy and priveliged will only flourish under one party or the other..............
almost as much as the naievity of those that think that the so called poor and under priveliged will only suffer under one party or the other
sorry uplink. you're quite right.
Im off for a bit for work but if it's a quiet night on TV tonight I may well be back...
Labour must have been good for the poor and under privileged - there are loads of them now.
Stoner, you're doing a lot of cut, copy and pasting today fella. You're lightning with a mouse...I can't believe you'd have typed all those that quickly.
Now, you know me, I'd never judge someone on their education (mind you, you must be pleased with a Cambridge double over Oxford...the boat race [i][b]and[/b][/i] University Challenge) 😉 It's very rarely up to the person which school he or she attends (many would say even university destination are largely decided by one's parents & secondary school), and if one attends a "good" school, it's more likely that one will then attend Oxbridge, Durham, St. Andrews etc (and the other top strata Universities, but I'm not acquainted).
But how would you equate how the decision which party one then joins?
EDIT: And I too have strayed wildly off topic...apologies
I would say (and it's only opinion mind, don't go chewing my head off, as I'm off down to the rowing club to do a bit of social climbing after this post, so will be defenseless) that if one decides to join the Labour Party or Lib Dems, then one at least started out with more of a sense of social justice and caring about those less fortunate than if one joins the tories. Of course, power will inevitably corrupt some, whichever party they join...
There must be loads of big issue, social legislation that the Tories have introduced.
I just can't for the life of me think of any - can anyone?
And as trailmonkey pointed out.. Labour pollies are almost as priviliged. What's your point?
With the emphasis on "almost". The point being that the likes of the possible future PM and Chancellor come from a even Higher education(wealthy-exclusive/priviliged)than those on that list.
It's not a surprise that so many Labour MP's have come from that educational background, they are the party of the middleclass after all.
Labour must have been good for the poor and under privileged - there are loads of them now.
Like with most of their policies, they inherited them from the previous Government.
Interesting piece stoner. The two are linked but not the same clearly. Also poverty can be absolute or relative. A basic bias in that piece tho. Inequality does matter greatly - but poverty matters far more.
Molgrips - you asked the question of what the picture meant. I answered it. Its important to remember where people come from socially as it colours their views and biases.
deadlydarcy - i think you theory only applies to conviction politicians not career ones, thus its's largely a dud.