The real Labour scandals

The events of recent weeks have turned an 11% Labour lead into an 11% Conservative lead.  In his column today Stephan Shakespeare offers a theory as to which voters are powering this volatility.  He puts it down to those voters who tell pollsters that they are going to vote but aren't really settled in their mind.  In what might be likened to the 'US Convention effect', Stephan postulates that these voters may be disproportionately affected by media froth but that the effect of this froth is not necessarily enduring.

What, in my opinion, Labour deserves to end Labour's period in office is not their failure to manage their own funding - serious as that is - but what they have done to Britain.

Two new reports this morning point to Labour's failure to help the poor.  The number of children living in poverty rose by 100,000 last year. 

Tax changes in Brown's last Budget - that are just about to bite - took money out of the pockets of the poor.

We also learn today that the UK cancer survival rate is no better than Slovenia.

Over the last five years Britain has fallen from third to 19th in the international league table of children's literacy skills.

Yesterday we learnt again about the scale of overstretch in our armed forces.

Dan Hannan made his own must-read list of Labour's starkest failures here.

There has been a history of the British people turning to the Conservatives when the nation is in trouble.  That is likely to be the situation in May 2010 - the likeliest date for this embattled Government to wait for an election.  The challenge over the next two-and-a-half years is to ensure we have the policy tools to meet the challenges that will exist by then.

Comments

[Matt Wright]

We have to explain the vision we have over and over again with a steady stream of practical examples and positive announcements so people get what we stand for. At the same time of course we have to act as a very strong opposition (as we have in the last few weeks) but as much as possible when we criticise we also have to offer up positive ideas.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Hear, hear Matt. Many of these problems are not new (overstretch and cancer survival etc) but it is only now that the government is being blamed and the opposition is being listened to with respect.We must use this time to set out vision for the future of this country and seek to provide honest solutions to the problems facing it.

[Oberon Houston]

Editor: Good link to Hannan - Matthew Parris is also a must read for bloggers (Daniel gives a link to it on his piece too).

[Helen]

Frankly, I do not believe that five years ago Britain was third in the literacy stakes. The educational problems of this country are considerably older than five years and predate the Labour government. Twenty years ago I was told solemnly by the head of a primary school in a very ordinary West London borough that about half the children there could not be taught, meaning that nobody had tried. About the same time there was a report that pointed to the large proportion of secondary school entrants could not read or write. Complaints from universities and employers about the literacy levesl of school leavers have been going on for considerably longer than five years. So don't try that one on - people are not that stupid and their memory tends to be longer than you think.

[James Maskell]

When Wendy Alexander walked down the steps to admit shed been involved in dodgy donations, why was she smiling as she walked to the steps? Does she think its funny? How she is allowed to keep her job, is bewildering. Her case for the sack/resignation is even clearer than Harmans. I dont care if its 950 pounds or 950,000 pounds, its all the same to me.

[Tony Makara]

More must be done to highlight how the very poorest sections of our society have suffered under the Labour government. While in opposition the Labour party like to portray itself as a modern day Robin Hood and constantly used the poor as a tool of propaganda.

I'm sure we all remember Neil Kinnock's scare mongering "I ask you not to be old, I ask you not to be poor" speech, which basically said that the poor, the sick, the old would suffer miserably under a Conservative government. Labour crowned themselves champions of the poor and yet from the moment they came into power they have hit the poor hardest while at the same time they have courted millionaire donors.

[Jim Tague]

Helen,

I agree, the length of time that companies have complained about literacy levels is much longer than 5 years.

However, the length of time that people have complained against Local Education Authorities, normally found to be full to the rafters with ideological Lefties, is much longer than that.

Might I suggest that the latter created the former.

[Comstock]

Tony, I think Kinnock would have given the poor sections of society a better deal than the current government. But that is pointless 'what if' speculation.

Jim, I don't see anything 'left wing' about not teaching kids to read or write properly, and it ill becomes you to suggest the 'left' don't care about this.

Indeed, as education is a 'great leveller' I would suggest decent education for those in poorer communities is about a socialist as you can get!

[David Cooper]

Tony, here's another interpretation (based upon The Shadow - the highwayman in Blackadder III). The main difference between Labour and Robin Hood is that although Labour have constantly robbed the rich, they have never quite got round to giving it to the poor. Well, it's so difficult, just think of the costs of administration and all those state payroll personnel to look after first...

[London Tory]

A good couple of weeks for us, but slightly spoiled in my view by a truly lamentable performance from Caroline Spelman on Any Questions? last Friday.

Muddled, stumbling, and defensive- and this when we are 11 points ahead in the polls.

It was left to Matthew Parris on the panel to properly articulate the Tory cause, but you do have to wonder why at this stage of the political cycle our Party Chairman is being outclassed in public by Labour's representative- Geoff Hoon for gods sake.

[Tony Makara]

When the Conservative party was in power I was critical about the many Alan B'stard style attacks on the jobless and single mothers, which I thought were nasty and attacking the most vunerable sections of our society rather than helping them. At the time the Labour party also condemned such comments. Yet, what happened when Labour got into power? We had David Blunkett saying "Daytime TV is not and option for the unemployed" Gordon Brown saying "idleness is not an option for the unemployed" Etc. One of the first things Labour did in office was to make a cut in child benefit. We've had the long-tern unemployed being forced to work for 50pence an hour under the NewDeal work-experience programme. We've had the poor denied access to an NHS dentist, something the Labour government has shown no interest in resolving. The attacks on single mothers have continued, even the disabled are not being 'expected' to work.

Comstock, I can't honestly say whether Neil Kinnock would have given the poor a fairer deal than the current government but it was interesting to hear Kinnock's lickspittle defense of the Blair years in his radio five interview a few months back.

David Cooper, interesting analogy. Labour really have no excuses for the appalling levels of poverty in our country. They have had a decade and as far as I can see things have only got worse not better.

[Tony Makara]

Typo: Should read

"even the disabled are now being 'expected' to work."

[Mike H]

Matt Wright 09:15 "We have to explain the vision we have over and over again..."

Much as I agree with the general principle of what you say, doing anything with 'a vision' has been tainted beyond use.

Let's choose a different form of words.

[Tony Makara]

Yesterdays comments on vision by Roy Hattersly were interesting. He really sounded as if he felt let down by New Labour and make calls for Gordon Brown to revive his standing by getting Labour to act like Labour. In other words a return to Old Labour ethics.

I wonder how many other more seasoned Labour party members are feeling cheated by the New Labour project. It would have been one thing for Labour to have tried a radical programme for government and have failed but quite another for Labour to have failed after having no programme for government at all. No wonder people like Hattersly feel as if the last decade has been a glorious opportunity for radical change thrown away. As Hattersly pointed out yesterday the Labour government has been so concerned about staying it power it hasn't dared to do anything remotely innovative and the radical change that Labour supporters hoped for hasn't happened.

[David Lindsay]

"There has been a history of the British people turning to the Conservatives when the nation is in trouble. That is likely to be the situation in May 2010 - the likeliest date for this embattled Government to wait for an election. The challenge over the next two-and-a-half years is to ensure we have the policy tools to meet the challenges that will exist by then."

Quite. There's no political difference whatever. Cameron is taking Short Money to provide an Opposition and is failing to do so, instead just sitting around waiting for the Government to collapse. Yet he wants even more public money!

What difference would a Cameron Government actually make? None whatever.

[David Sergeant]

"Frankly, I do not believe that five years ago Britain was third in the literacy stakes"

I bet if the, international and therefore relevant, statistics benefited Labour she wouldn't try to rubbish them with unscientific personal anecdotes.

"Quite. There's no political difference whatever. Cameron is taking Short Money to provide an Opposition and is failing to do so, instead just sitting around waiting for the Government to collapse."

David Lindsay, suggest you go back to sleep. You've obviously been happily snoozing for the last two years.

[Helen]

Jim Tague | December 03, 2007 at 11:06

However, the length of time that people have complained against Local Education Authorities, normally found to be full to the rafters with ideological Lefties, is much longer than that.

Wouldn't argue about that but through much of that time we had a Conservative government that did what? Introduced Baker days into schools, as I recall, and tried to centralize education even more. What did that result in? And while we are on the subject, what are the Conservatives proposing now? The same tired old ideas of state run schools. All I am suggesting is that you guys do not campaign on education because people are not that stupid.