h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Presumably this hastens Scottish independence?

Dunno. Ian Bell's claims that Labour are really the only party that could hold the union together, so in that way it might. It won't slow it down, that's for sure.

Bullshit Pedro? I think not. It goes to the absolute core of what Labour are about.

"Male life expectancy for the whole of Glasgow, including its lush suburbs, averages 70.7 years - worse than Gaza’s 71.01 years. In East Glasgow, it goes right down to 53.9 years in the Calton ward (see here for a full rundown). It is tragic comic to see Labour taking such a philosophical attitude to the scandalous deprivation in Glasgow East during this election campaign as if they were talking about the weather. “Oh, its heartbreaking and very complex” they say and use phrases like “multiple deprivation” to make it sound so complicated that government cant do anything about it. What’s happened is that Labour’s remedy to poverty – more money – has made the problem worse. And these Labour MPs can’t begin to understand why."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/830056/the-glasgow-east-byelection-shows-us-the-two-scotlands.thtml

sorry, should be 'Ian Bell claims'

Hmm Here's another article -

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5f03f70c-4e94-11dd-ba7c-000077b07658.html

"Male life expectancy is 63, which is 14 years below the UK average. Unemployment runs at 25 per cent and about 40 per cent of the constituents live on benefits. About 40 per cent of the children live in workless households. Sadly, “household” is not always the most appropriate term. The teenage pregnancy rate is 40 per cent above the national average."

"These estates are Labour strongholds. The ultimate indictment of Labour is that it has suited the party to keep people dependent on the state. That is harsh, but there may be an element of truth in it. What is indisputable is that, despite many years of effort, the city’s Labour politicians have been unable to revive the whole of the city. Parts of it have been transformed, but other parts, such as the Glasgow East constituency, remain symptoms not so much of neglect as of sheer political insufficiency."

Awwwwwww McKay I was looking forward to Pedro pointing out the Socialist Nirvanas Labour have created after 11 years in power and hundreds of $billions spent. I was so anticipating how he was going to explain how Labour have reduced inequality and narrowed the gap between rich and poor. It would have been great to see him wax lyrical about the growth in workers rights and the increased powers given to the Unions to resist mercenary Capitalist Industries. Not to mention how wonderful it is that the number of people too sick to work has trebled under Labour.

Pity

For those of us who don't know the area so well - I was last there 37 years ago - this seems a fairly balanced view.

http://www.glasgowwestend.co.uk/out/outdoors/brigtoncross.html

SWL, re the Spectator article shows us that it's a bad place; it doesn't say if it's getting better or worse though, and that is surely the point?

<>

So the source you choose to back up your point that 'Labour's purpose is to keep people poor, to keep people sick, to keep people reliant on their Labour masters for the food on their tables and the roof over their heads' is shown to be bullshit.

If you want to argue that Labour's policies have been ineffective, then a look at Calton's life expectancy would prove you right. To claim that 'Labour's purpose is to keep people poor' is arse gravy of the highest order.

<>

If you remembered what I've said in the past, SWL, you'd know that the reason I dislike New Labour is that they're basically the nice Tory party. Not very socialist at all, as you yourself point out.

Hi McKay - that link reads like a romanticised walk through the East City Centre. It doesn't take in the real dark areas like Easterhouse.

Pedro - who are Labour's core voters?

Dunno. Do tell.

Ok then. Teachers, TU members, public sector workers, progressives generally?

*unsubs*

I would have said the kind of people that will turn out for a doughnut. That's what Hazel Blears thinks anyway.

And your point is?

OK, teachers & public sector workers (same thing really), both dependant upon public spending. Trade Union members *are* the Labour party so something of a non-sequiteur there . Progressives? Since when did Lib Dems vote Labour?

Labour are historically known as the tax & spend party. They tax the well-off to increase services for all, but particularly the poor. (Actually, nowadays they tax everyone in Britain to give to the poor abroad.)

The Tories are the party that lower taxes and cut public spending, therefore anyone whose livelihood depends on a thriving public sector would be a turkey voting for Christmas if they voted Tory.

Hence Labour's core vote is anybody reliant upon the state - public sector workers and those on benefits.

Actually, who would vote Labour these days? The poor may be better off than they would under the Tories, but even if that's the case there is still an underclass who are poorer, worse educated and shorter-lived than the majority. Why should they vote labour? It's not really in their interests any more, now that New Labour have realised they have to keep voters in swing seats happy or lose one general election after another.

Simulpost

Don't you think that's radically oversimplifying things? Do you think everyone in the private sector votes Tory?

Do doctors who work for the NHS but do private stuff on the side have a nervous breakdown every 4-5 years?


And tax & spend is what govts *do*. Don't confuse 80s electioneering with some kind of fact, eh?

FFS, of course it's a simplification. Voting patterns are affected by any number of individual reasons, but general trends make themselves clear.

Tax (until the pips squeak) and spend (and borrow to spend more) is what Labour does.

Tax to meet low spending targets is what Tories do.

You make a good point though about the very poorest having nowhere to turn now though, especially given Labour's "attack" on benefits (although how much is real and how much is spin is open to debate).

A Socialist Labour died in the 80s, hence New Labour (Tory-Lite). Brown was supposed to be a step back, but has proved to be nothing of the sort - something the voters of Glasgow East may have realised.