Was Labour right not to call a general election?

Discuss the latest news in the media and voice your own opinions about the news.

Was Labour right not to call a general election?

Postby mattie » Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:33 pm

According to the latest polls, Gordon Brown and the Labour party would suffer huge losses, or maybe even lose the General election to the Conservative party if the General election were held today. This comes as no great surprise as Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have failed in the many key areas, such as:

1) Immigration - a few million illegal immigrants have made it into this country as a result of our lax border controls. Whilst some are undoubtedly hard-working and peace loving people, it is a huge threat to our national security, especially in this age of terrorism and religious extremism. Is it wise to allow so many people to live illegally in this country when we don't know their identity? Also, can we afford to support so many people, especially with the strain that they put on our public services and the tax payer?

2) The benefit system - has been a complete disaster. It has all but irradicated the idea of personal responsibility. It no longer pays to be married. Indeed my parents would actually be better off financially if they divorced!!!!!! I would get more help with my student loans and they would get tax breaks if they seaparated! Is this fair???

Why should the wealthy be penalised for working and being responsible? Don't they already pay enough tax? People who spend most of their lives unemployed get huge handouts (I know this from experience). Families with children (especially feckless parents who have many children by different fathers) are better off still. Whereas if you get a really hard-working person like my father, who works for a pittance in a factory, you are expected to still help out others who get state handouts and their rent paid!!

This system is messed up.

Indeed the Conservatives would abandon inheritance tax for most families and actually make sure that parents who stay married are not penalised financially for doing so!! That makes sense imo.

3) Law and order - need I say more? :? Let's just say that violence and crime has increased exponentially since Labour came to power. They don't believe in prison sentences or strong punishments for murderers or rapists! They are telling judges to release them and encourage rehabilitation instead. This doesn't work!!!

4) Political correctness - need I say more?

In fact, Labour can only claim success with the economy. I have to say I am not in the least surprised that Labour is losing out in the polls. The sooner we get rid of this communist party and everything it stands for the better!!


Mattie (unashamed of now being a Tory supporter).
mattie
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:35 am

Postby Henri » Sat Oct 06, 2007 5:48 pm

It is quite evident that this was a dire tactical decision from Gordon Brown, and as Sir Menzies Campbell stated, an example of him putting his personal interest, and that of his party, over the nation's. Labour have been frightened into backing down, presumably due to both the Conservative fightback, and their diminished standing in the polls. A definitive sign of weakness.

I suspect this is a decision he will live to regret.
Henri
Forum Master
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading, U.K

Postby Dork_Lord » Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:35 pm

I am not sure whether this was a good decision, this decision may be seen as worries by the conservative party, on the other hand it may project the image that Gordon Brown is wanting to govern the country properly, rather than cement his power with an election straight away.

I personally support Gordon Brown, I think he is running the country rather well at the moment, and is a breath of fresh air from Tony Blair's style of leadership (which David Cameron is remarkably similar to.)
User avatar
Dork_Lord
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:43 am
Location: Cardiff

Postby steve » Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:40 pm

the problem with this is that it might make brown look weak. he should have gone for it. he was only one point below and the polls change every day. i have no doubt that he would have won it. i don't agree with all of brown's policies but i support labour nonetheless and i think he's doing a good job right now. he does after all, unlike cameron, stand for something and has concrete ideas which have proved effective in the various crisises which have hit britain recently. i think most of the electorate see througn cameron's act.
steve
Super Poster
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:30 pm
Location: coventry, england

Postby Henri » Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:14 pm

Dork_Lord wrote:I am not sure whether this was a good decision, this decision may be seen as worries by the conservative party, on the other hand it may project the image that Gordon Brown is wanting to govern the country properly, rather than cement his power with an election straight away.

I personally support Gordon Brown, I think he is running the country rather well at the moment, and is a breath of fresh air from Tony Blair's style of leadership (which David Cameron is remarkably similar to.)


Govern the country properly? He should have, like the majority of other Prime Ministers, been chosen by the electorate and given the fair opportunity to "govern properly".

I must admit, the state of the economy is good, and the credit for that must go to Gordon for his ruthless nature as chancellor. However, it is based on temporary solutions, such as immigration and the rise in house prices. He knows himself that it is going to deteriorate in the near future, thus providing one of the main incentives to call an election now, whilst his popularity had not diminished too much.

"running the country rather well"? Tell that to the poor, ill people who depend on a sub-standard NHS to provide their necessary treatment and decide whether they carry on with life or reach a dehumanizing, debilitating death.

Tell that to the millions whose life savings were raided by Gordon Brown to bolster our failing economy.

Also, if our economy is as prosperous as he would have you believe, then surely we wouldn't need to borrow (roughly) 165 billion pounds over the next 6 years, would we? And you know who is going to be paying that back; us, the taxpayer.
Henri
Forum Master
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading, U.K

Postby intowiz » Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:55 pm

dear god man labour suck but thats no reason to vote conservitive either. id hate to see that spineless moron cameron in charge same as i hate seeing brown in charge.
"Dance on, lads, you're young; I was once."
Old manx sailor, Moby dick
User avatar
intowiz
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:43 am


Return to News and Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron