Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Labour - positive things

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I know there's plenty of negative things that Labour have done since coming into power in 1997 but can anyone name any positive things.
I'll start..
Minimum wage

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ban of fox hunting.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Giving independence to the Bank of England and the Minimum Wage. Pretty much everything else they've attempted has been a disaster.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What comes to mind straight away for me....

    The good: Ending Section 28, civil partnerships, peace in NI, improvements in the NHS, the New Deal and more equality overall (better representation of women in politics, more rights for LGBT and disabled people).

    The bad: Top-up fees, city academies, things should have improved more given how much more Labour has taxed people
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What comes to mind straight away for me....

    The good: Ending Section 28, civil partnerships, peace in NI, improvements in the NHS, the New Deal and more equality overall (better representation of women in politics, more rights for LGBT and disabled people).
    That plus the aforementioned minimum wage, Bank of England independence and ban on fox-hunting more or less covers it. Oh, and very good management of the economy for the first 8 years at least.

    It has to be said that it is a very impressive list of achievements, and one that, make no mistake, not even the last 5 conservative governments put together could match in their wildest dreams. In fact, during this stretch in power Labour has arguably achieved more positive things than any other government in living history.

    Sadly it has also achieved many negative things, and worse of all they were things that were completely unnecessary, avoidable and against the natural ideology of the party (privatisation, PFIs, and the fucking Iraq war).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The justice system, and Labour's inability to keep it's promises of improving it in anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They have massively improved public services, the NHS especially people tend to forget that people had to wait 20 or more hours in A&E sometimes.

    But its come at a massive cost and I dont think we have got value for money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't think of anything...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What comes to mind straight away for me....

    The good: Ending Section 28

    I'm afraid I disagree on this.

    I feel that any praise for repealing Section 28 should go to the activists who fought that disgusting piece of legislation... Oh and a thumbs up to red Ken for supporting the groups.

    New Labour are just trying to pull the PC card to cover up for other inequalities they are attempting to create.

    The fox hunting ban as well, I'd imagine was largely due to activists and pressure from other places. Of course, God forbid we view animal rights activists as anything other than violent straightedge punks in balaclavas.

    Don't get me wrong... I don't hate our government, I feel that it is far from perfect and know a lot of what they're doing behind the scene is pretty harsh (but then I'm a socialist)... I am happy that it responded to the activists, I am a bit miffed that same sex couples have a seperate law for "those over there" regarding marriage (or lack thereof) and I think that New Labour should get their ass in gear with environmental legislation.

    Still... Rather New Labour than the Tories...

    We could live under a far worse government than the one we have.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know everyone likes to have a whinge at them, but I reckon they've done an okay job. They're never going to please everyone, but I would say the country is undoubtedly in a better state now than it was in 1997. The thing that I think is worst (other than the Iraq disaster) is the fact that the gap between the rich and poor has become greater, which is a bit of a failure for a Labour government. And obviously a lot of the improvements are expected because of the huge tax increases and investment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I feel that any praise for repealing Section 28 should go to the activists who fought that disgusting piece of legislation...
    Can anyone actually explain to me why the repealing of Section 28 was so incredibly significant? As far as I am aware, no one was ever actually prosecuted under this act, so I suggest its abolition was nothing more than symbolism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »

    Still... Rather New Labour than the Tories...
    The lesser of 2 evils definitely.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Can anyone actually explain to me why the repealing of Section 28 was so incredibly significant? As far as I am aware, no one was ever actually prosecuted under this act, so I suggest its abolition was nothing more than symbolism.
    But a very important one: namely the fact that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

    Section 28 was an evil piece of legislation that suggested there was, and that our children needed to be "protected" against the very concept that some people are attracted to those of the same sex, and that is okay.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lea_uk wrote: »
    The lesser of 2 evils definitely.

    I think they're exactly the same. I would never vote for either of them.
    The minimum wage and peace in Northern Ireland were amazing achievements, and every government will be hated by some people whatever they do, because you can't keep everybody happy.
    The thing that bothers me about Labour is the amount of money they waste. I don't remember much about the NHS before 1997 so I haven't noticed any improvements, but Labour also seem too obsessed with targets.
    I don't think they've done as badly as other governments, but I think maybe normal people who haven't been rich for their entire lives could do a better job.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Can anyone actually explain to me why the repealing of Section 28 was so incredibly significant? As far as I am aware, no one was ever actually prosecuted under this act, so I suggest its abolition was nothing more than symbolism.

    I suspect that's a reflection on schools (for example) following the law carefully, rather than people doing it anyway and getting away with it. None of those school books that discuss families with two parents of the same sex would be allowed under section 28, and I suspect that's why they've only recently been introduced into schools.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Can anyone actually explain to me why the repealing of Section 28 was so incredibly significant? As far as I am aware, no one was ever actually prosecuted under this act, so I suggest its abolition was nothing more than symbolism.
    Can you explain why such legislation is not significant?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Can you explain why such legislation is not significant?
    No one was ever prosecuted under this act. That, to me, suggests that this law wasn't much cop in the first place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I'm afraid I disagree on this.

    I feel that any praise for repealing Section 28 should go to the activists who fought that disgusting piece of legislation... Oh and a thumbs up to red Ken for supporting the groups.

    Well I'm afraid you're wrong.

    Grassroots activists (i.e. Peter Tatchell/Outrage!) and insider groups like Stonewall fought Section 28 - and a lot of people within the Labour Party listened to them. Of course, it wasn't entirely Labour's own initiative but lets be very clear: the Conservatives wouldn't have consulted with Stonewall about scrapping Section 28, civil partnerships and homophobic bullying in schools.
    New Labour are just trying to pull the PC card to cover up for other inequalities they are attempting to create.

    It was a Labour government that got rid of Section 28, brought in civil partnerships and is starting to take an interest in tackling the particularly endemic problem of homophobic bullying in schools.

    I'm not seeking to take credit away from grassroots activists, I'm involved in the NUS LGBT campaign myself and I've seen first hand the dedication and commitment of campaigners around the country -- I've
    huge admiration and respect for Peter Tatchell - but in defence of Labour, they've a record of listening to LGBT activists and then implementing change. Nobody is saying Labour have been perfect on LGBT issues but in 10 years there's been an enormous amount of progress and Labour continues to listen seriously to the LGBT community.
    The fox hunting ban as well, I'd imagine was largely due to activists and pressure from other places. Of course, God forbid we view animal rights activists as anything other than violent straightedge punks in balaclavas.

    Fox hunting is slightly different. Enough MPs seemed to relish the prospect of spending hundreds of hours of parliamentary time on the issue. IMO, the fox hunting ban debate was about taking attention away from other issues - and pissing off some 'toffs' in the process. If it had anything to do with the activists perhaps we'd have had a watertight fox hunting ban which was enforced - from what it seems, the ban hasn't saved a single fox or made much difference...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fox hunting is slightly different. Enough MPs seemed to relish the prospect of spending hundreds of hours of parliamentary time on the issue. IMO, the fox hunting ban debate was about taking attention away from other issues - and pissing off some 'toffs' in the process.
    If I remember correctly, the fox hunting ban issue came up for the final time when things started going disastrously wrong in Iraq. MPs were baying for Tony Blair's political blood, so he threw them this piece of meat to distract them. The fox hunting ban had nothing to do with principles or promises, and everything to do with saving Blair's bacon.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Can anyone actually explain to me why the repealing of Section 28 was so incredibly significant? As far as I am aware, no one was ever actually prosecuted under this act, so I suggest its abolition was nothing more than symbolism.

    The effects of Section 28 are still felt today in schools where teachers are afraid to talk about LGBT issues. The idea homosexuality could be 'promoted' is ridiculous because of the implication that sexuality is a choice. Because of Section 28 many teachers felt unable to provide support for LGBT students - given the research that has been done into homophobic bullying in the last year or two (showing that it is endemic and a huge problem) - I can only imagine it was even worse in the 80s/90s, but because of Section 28, teachers were prevented from taking steps to tackle homophobic bullying... There's a lot of people who still believe Section 28 applies - and it'll take a long time to completely get over the damage it's caused.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I'm afraid you're wrong.

    Grassroots activists (i.e. Peter Tatchell/Outrage!) and insider groups like Stonewall fought Section 28 - and a lot of people within the Labour Party listened to them. Of course, it wasn't entirely Labour's own initiative but lets be very clear: the Conservatives wouldn't have consulted with Stonewall about scrapping Section 28, civil partnerships and homophobic bullying in schools.
    Well the Conservatives were split on the issue, weren't they?

    I think that they would have repealed it.
    It was a Labour government that got rid of Section 28, brought in civil partnerships and is starting to take an interest in tackling the particularly endemic problem of homophobic bullying in schools.
    Sure... Civil Partnerships and yeah, they're better than nothing for people who want to have them... But imo they're a patronising and segregational piece of legislation. Let same sex couples get 'married' or don't... God forbid somebody should offend middle England.
    I'm not seeking to take credit away from grassroots activists, I'm involved in the NUS LGBT campaign myself and I've seen first hand the dedication and commitment of campaigners around the country -- I've
    huge admiration and respect for Peter Tatchell - but in defence of Labour, they've a record of listening to LGBT activists and then implementing change. Nobody is saying Labour have been perfect on LGBT issues but in 10 years there's been an enormous amount of progress and Labour continues to listen seriously to the LGBT community.
    Fair enough...

    But then denying Carol Ann Duffy a Poet Laureate because of her sexuality hardly looks gay friendly.

    My view is that Labour may have started acting for the LGBT community in attempt to reclaim some support from the Left after going to Iraq... Funny timing that, six years after coming in and a few months after going to Iraq.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Well the Conservatives were split on the issue, weren't they?

    William Hague was pretty clear in his support for it... And Cameron's record isn't perfect.

    Of course as someone from Stonewall in that latter article points out in the last few years the Conservatives have (generally) been progressive. And there has always been vocal opposition to Section 28 in the Conservatives and they were split on the issue...

    But - I think it's pretty indisputable that we wouldn't be where we are now if it wasn't for a Labour government.
    I think that they would have repealed it.

    Eventually - probably. Progress would have happened very slowly. And I don't think anybody seriously thinks a future Conservative govt would bring back Section 28, end civil partnerships, end gay adoption, etc. But - that wasn't the point of this thread, the point was highlighting positive things about Labour.
    Sure... Civil Partnerships and yeah, they're better than nothing for people who want to have them... But imo they're a patronising and segregational piece of legislation. Let same sex couples get 'married' or don't... God forbid somebody should offend middle England.

    I partly agree. The problem is marriage has religious connotations. Looking at America shows "gay marriage" has a particular way of mobilising religious types... Civil partnership goes a long way towards diffusing that opposition. To say it's 'better than nothing' is slightly unfair; civil partnerships basically provide parity for same-sex couples without being called 'marriage.' I'm happy with civil partnerships and I don't think Stonewall, NUS LGBT, etc should be getting bogged down on the difference in terminology between marriage/civil partnership/etc, there's a lot more important issues! i.e. Love Without Borders - persecution against LGBT people overseas and issues around Bullying...
    But then denying Carol Ann Duffy a Poet Laureate because of her sexuality hardly looks gay friendly.

    Obviously Labour hasn't been perfect! I've heard diff stories about Carol Ann Duffy. Don't know how accurate the wiki page is but some do think she didn't want it anyway... Either way, Labour obviously hasn't been perfect - threatening to deport gay Iranian refugees comes to mind...
    My view is that Labour may have started acting for the LGBT community in attempt to reclaim some support from the Left after going to Iraq... Funny timing that, six years after coming in and a few months after going to Iraq.

    Yeah I think that's probably true to some extent. The SWP/Respect and figures like Ken Livingstone have courted Muslim support which has sometimes been at the expense of the LGBT community. I heard Peter Tatchell speak and he basically accused elements of the far-left of losing confidence in the working class and seeking out Muslims as the agents of 'revolutionary change' - thus turning a blind eye to their views towards women/LGBT people. I don't think that's true of Livingstone but I think it does apply to some on the fringes of the far-left, it kinda makes sense for Labour to re-emphasise its credentials in supporting LGBT people... And yeah - given that it's generally been a huge positive for Labour it makes sense they'd emphasise it when faced with tricky stuff like Iraq...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Can anyone actually explain to me why the repealing of Section 28 was so incredibly significant? As far as I am aware, no one was ever actually prosecuted under this act, so I suggest its abolition was nothing more than symbolism.

    Well they wouldn't have been as it wasn't a prosecutable act (there were no criminal sanctions). It placed a duty on local authorities, like thousands of other duties they have on them. It's very, very seldom these are deliberately broken (the only time I can think off is in the 70s with an argument between a Labour Council and Heath's government)

    It was probably a bad clause, but it was worsened by the NUT claiming it would stop teachers providing pastural care when it said nothing of the sort and the guidance notes made it explicit that this was not what was meant by 'promoting'. Still when did the NUT care either about protecting its members or young people.... especially if they could use it as a stick to get Mrs T out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well they wouldn't have been as it wasn't a prosecutable act (there were no criminal sanctions). It placed a duty on local authorities, like thousands of other duties they have on them. It's very, very seldom these are deliberately broken (the only time I can think off is in the 70s with an argument between a Labour Council and Heath's government)

    It was probably a bad clause, but it was worsened by the NUT claiming it would stop teachers providing pastural care when it said nothing of the sort and the guidance notes made it explicit that this was not what was meant by 'promoting'. Still when did the NUT care either about protecting its members or young people.... especially if they could use it as a stick to get Mrs T out.

    Why was it 'probably a bad clause' then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    Why was it 'probably a bad clause' then?

    because it wasn't needed...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think they've improved schools to a degree. It has been a lot of just pumping money into it and hoping things get better - look at exam results though - more people are going to university, more people are getting a levels or going into some form of training after GCSEs.

    There will always be those who are glad to see the back of school but I genuinely think the education system has been changing for the better to cater all different types of abilities. I think a lot of the schemes weren't brilliant - the specialist college status for example.

    If you decide to change your high school or college to a 'specialist' college you get a £50k grant every year. So our college decided to become a language college, other colleges did other things. The investment is spent on things like computer suites and what not, just improving the general school. It's meant we could afford a new and better library, too.

    But calling themselves specialist colleges was in so many cases a farce. For one, you don't get to choose what college you go to anyway, so specialising in a subject and going to that college is useless. Secondly, none of the colleges that I've been to running the scheme were exceptional in their field of supposed expertise.

    So yea, education improved under labour. It's a shame about us having to pay tuition fees. I've worked out my student debt will be ~£24k when I leave uni (about £3k a year tuition loan and £3k a year maintenence loan, over 4 years). People in scotland will graduate (I think) with no tuition fee loan. Hard to get my head round that one..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    because it wasn't needed...

    I remember reading about a school that was introducing gay storybooks for young kids, ostensibly to reduce gay bullying. They were eventually pulled because parents made a fuss about not being consulted about it, so maybe you're right that it wasn't needed. But supposedly it was aimed at stopping things like that in the first place.
Sign In or Register to comment.