Accessability Links

Yes to Labour! How a Red Result would look post-May

Posted by
05 May 2015
With election coverage dominating the media at the moment, it can be difficult to decipher who to trust politically, let alone understand what exactly is being advocated.  One of the major arguments of Nigel Farage and the like, is that there isn't a distinction between the three main political parties. Whilst this may be true in terms of the private schooled, Oxbridge educated background of the 'career politicians' we see lining the front benches, beyond characteristics there certainly could be vast differences in regards to the face of the country post-election. As a recruitment consultancy specialising in the legal and finance sectors it is undeniable that elements of policy can affect our line of work. We must consider investment into Public Services, unemployment levels, local council funding (regional investment) and the living wage.

Casting our minds back five years ago to when the first political debates took place, the country looked completely different: it was in effect at rock bottom. We had a choice between cuts and expenditure, and given the letter left by Ed Balls stating "Sorry, we have no money left” , the choice was relatively simple - we went (marginally) Tory. Yes, Labour spent too much in their time in government. Yes, Blair led us into two very expensive wars (both financially and in regard to human life) and yes, Labour had become complacent in their 13 years of power. However these are all worn arguments from the 2010 election. The fact is now Cameron, Osbourne and May have a five year record of their own to defend. I want politicians to explain how they are going to make life more comfortable going forward - not living in the mistakes of the past.
It is true that, for example there has been small amounts of growth in the economy, and unemployment rates are lower. However, in many ways the spirit of Britain has been crushed by Cameron and the country more so than ever is on its knees. Unemployment has been replaced with exploitative Zero-Hour contracts for people who don't even work on a living wage. Cameron has even admitted himself he couldn't afford to live on a Zero-Hour contract - so why should we have to?

My concern with the current government and what they have done over the last five years, is that the changes may be irreversible. Councils are cutting at a colossal rate, soon the only service they will provide is emptying bins, and this is because of the Conservatives; no one else. This brings me onto the NHS. 

The NHS is one of the main political football this election, and whilst I disagree with its use as a point scoring tool, it is important to be discussed and hotly debated policy-wise. Cameron promised nothing but the best for the NHS last time he was vying for votes.

Tax is also a big sticking point. Whilst I do have some sympathy for the idea that by having lower tax, it encourages the rich people into Britain, this shouldn't be our primary focus; the everyday man or woman should be. If we are going down the line that Britain is for the British shouldn't that be the case for the rich as well as the working class? Thatcher's trickle-down theory of rich and poor doesn't work effectively enough for us to justify it. Under Cameron and co, tax for the highest earning bracket has been reduced from 50% to 45%. Really, David? During a time that you are cutting left, right and centre it is a priority to help out those that are already doing well. If anyone tries to protest that they are not a party for the rich, look no further. Tax avoidance has also come to the forefront as large multi-national corporations such as Starbucks, Amazon and Google that have avoided paying tax in the UK. Where is the fairness in this and why isn't more being done to crack down on it?
So you can stick to the plan if "working" means to you - forcing families into poverty, bringing the NHS to its knees and cutting tax for the wealthiest in the country. Or you can choose an alternative. Ed Miliband isn't his brother, he isn't Tony Blair, he isn't even New Labour. He represents a moderate Labour, sticking up for working people (and yes I mean those working, not just on benefits). The Tories have advocated another £12 billion to be cut from public services which is barbaric - Osbourne has gone too deep too quick. Cuts were needed but it is now time to grow the economy, if people don't have disposable income how are they meant to spend? Ed has said he needs to rein in typical levels of Labour spending, whilst crucially protecting key areas within Health and Education. That sounds like a pretty good plan to me.

Do you agree? Would a result favoring Labour or Conservatives work best? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below...
Add new comment
Back to Top