Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trebor
Bexy you may like to read this taken from
http://www.parliament.the-stationer...xt/60517-15.htm
17 May 1996 : Column 1231
schools, what did the Labour party do? It opposed it. When the Government introduced the Education Act 1980, which brought in parental choice and provided information through testing, the Labour party voted against it. When the Government introduced the Education Reform Act 1988 and the national curriculum, the Labour party opposed those measures.
When the Government introduced the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 and top-up loans for students, what did the Labour party do? It opposed those measures. When the Government introduced the Education (Schools) Act 1992--which made it easier for schools to become grant-maintained and brought in the Funding Agency for Schools for England--the Labour party opposed it. When the Government brought in the Education Act 1994, which reformed initial teacher training--the very issue that I was talking about, and about which Labour Members agreed with me--the Labour party opposed it
|
Hang on, Labour could have repealed the Conservatives' Student Grant legislation had they wished; they didn't. They could have abandoned school league tables; they didn't. They could have fully returned the Grant Maintained schools to Local Authority control and funding; they didn't, choosing instead a fudge to keep middle-class voters on-side. The Conservatives have never proposed going as far as Labour has with university tuition fees.
When you are in opposition, talk is cheap. All that matters is what you do when you get the chance. By that measure, Labour hypocrisy is astonishing. If you've watched the video clip I linked to, you will have seen Michael Howard listing off one or two of the things Blair pledged in the past but has shrunk back from now. As Howard said, we could debate the past for hours, the present and the future is more important.
But while we're talking about the past, to call the Council Tax 'son of the Poll Tax' (as Labour did when in opposition, and which you have implied) is completely bogus. The Council Tax is based on the value of your house and is therefore much more closely related to the rates. And as for the rateable value of your house ... the rateable value is now essentially meaningless, except for determining water bills if you don't have a meter. You pay £450 more because the council wants more of your money in order to function. Do you really think that if you were still billed on rateable value, the council would not have upped the %age of RV that you would have to pay them? Or do you think your council's budget for this year would be £x million lower as a result of some inability to get as much money out of you through rates as compared to council tax?
And if Council Tax is so bad, why has Labour done nothing about it in the last six years, and why does it not plan to do anything about it for the forseeable future?