The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The U.K Ought to Vote for a Labour Government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
TheUnexaminedLife has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/5/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 3,087 times Debate No: 102857
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (51)
Votes (0)




Due to the imminence of the upcoming election, I will be outlining my opening argument in this round. TheUnexaminedLife will be arguing as Con; I wish him the best of luck!

Full Resolution: the U.K ought to vote for a Labour government, opposed to a Conservative one.

==Debate Structure==

First round acceptance/opening arguments, followed by rebuttals and closing arguments in the next two.



1.) used to say or suggest what should be done

1.b) used to indicate desirability


(Labour Party)


==Opening Argument==

C1.) The Increasing of National Debt Under the Conservatives

As it happens, the national debt level has actually increased since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, to an estimated 555 billion pounds. The Office of National Statistics stated that the government borrowed 70.7 billion pounds in the first 11 months of the 2015-2016 financial year [2.]

Naturally, if a Conservative government is re-voted for yet again, this national debt level would expand. In fact the Chancellor (as of July 2016), has said himself that the national debt level is likely to increase to 2 trillion pounds; this under a Tory government of course.

The reason that I am *highlighting* this is because of allegations of over-spending made by the Cons to Labour; especially in this election. Moreover high national debt levels are obviously not positive things as they contribute to slow growth and increase interest percentages.

This graph shows how debt has increased since 2010:

Now, some people may claim that the Conservatives *needed* to spent more as a result of the global financial increase, but this claim is unfounded as the debt levels have continued to increase with each passing year; even after the recession was officially over in 2013. [3.]

C2.) The NHS Crisis

Now, the ongoing crisis with public services is one of the most important and widely discussed issued in this general election. Since the Tories were elected, public services have been significantly underfunded--the money that the Tories have borrowed--has not been focused on the public sector at all; on the contrary, it has be largely cut, both in terms of funding and staff. The NHS is the biggest example of this; with a crisis that is so great that 2016 was declared 'the worst in its (NHS) history.'

Ambulance level response times have decreased, with one-third failing to meet targets for critical response calls [4.]

The article also references the 5 billion pound cuts that the care sector has experienced under the Tories, something that undoubtedly strains the NHS in addition to its own cuts.

Once more, the article mentions the number of hospital beds that have been closed--more 13,000 as of January 2017--which directly cuts the capacity of the NHS by 5 million a year.

As this graph demonstrates, the cuts to the NHS have been severe, with previous Labour governments investing far more into its National Health Service:

This is also extremely detrimental, as with an aging population, the demand for A&E is inevitably rising:

The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine published two articles stating that 'relentless cuts' in health and social care could've been responsible for more than 30,000 deaths in 2015. Here is a passage from the article:

'Professor Martin McKee, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said: 'The impact of cuts resulting from the imposition of austerity on the NHS has been profound. Expenditure has failed to keep pace with demand and the situation has been exacerbated by dramatic reductions in the welfare budget of £16.7 billion and in social care spending.'

Further stating:

'To maintain current levels of social care would require an extra £1.1 billion, which the government has refused.'

[5.] [6.]

The Labour Response:

It's important to note that the NHS is itself a Labour creation, first brought to the public in 1948, in the hope to provide accessible and 'good healthcare for all'. [7.]

So, the NHS is particularly integral to the Labour cause. Jeremy Corbyn has pledged an extra 37 billion of funds towards the NHS and social care service [8.]

In terms of how this money would be freed-up, the Labour response is firstly to reduce cuts and use money that from the tax increases that will be made on those earning more than 80,000 pounds a year, an additional increase on 123,00 year salaries, and big corporations.

The corporation tax will be an increase of 26%, something that will inevitably raise funds.

Through these combined tax increases, Labour has estimated that 48.6 billion pounds will be raised. [9.]

(Aneurin Bevan, the Labour Health Secretary responsible for creating the NHS.)

To leave this particular contention with an additional quote:

'I know people are impassioned about Brexit and nuclear weaponry and anti-terorrism, but none of that means anything if we cannot give our loved ones respect and care....what would Manchester (reference to recent terror attacks) have done without the NHS?'

C3.) The Education Sector

Similarly to the NHS, the education sector has also been severely impacted by cuts. The above tax increase would also be used to end the cuts and invest more money into the education system; which at this point is desperately needed. The Education Union has estimated the 99% of schools across the U.K will continue to be negatively impacted, unless education policy is seriously altered. [10.]

Labour's Education Plan:

•An end to cuts

•Further school investment

•Less bureaucracy

•Free schools meals for primary (elementary) school children

I mention this last one, as there is a particular issue with concentration levels. In fact, direct correlations have been found with hunger and inability to concentrate and flourish in an educational environment; with 65% of 'hungry' children experiencing behavioural problems, 82% being experiencing tiredness, and 84% experiencing poor academic performance. [11.]

(See p.3)

Onto the next issue, which are crippling university fees. When the Tories came to power, they increased tuition fees to 9,000 pounds per year and in 2016, added a further 250.

According to the Social Mobility Charity, the average student is left with an estimated 44,000 in debt. While some of the poorer students, according to the chairman of the Sutton Trust, owning around 55,000 in debt [12.]

In his election manifesto, Jeremy Corbyn has stated that university fees will be abolished--saying that he would enact the policy as early as this Autumn. [13.]

C4.) Renationalisation of Key Services

Another feature of the Labour mangoes to, is the pledge to renationalise the rail system, the Royal Mail delivery service, the water system, and the Electric Grid System (I.E electric firms) ; as well as overturning decision to sell parts of the NHS to private buyers and prevent any further privatisation from occurring.

By renationalising the water industry, Labour has said that bills we be reduced by 100 pounds a year per household. [14.]

In terms of railways, commuters could save over 1000 pounds per year on their ticket costs [15.]

Other reasons to vote Labour:

•Ban on fracking

•Protection of pension and

other elderly benefits

•Review on 'benefit cap.'

•More police

•More border police

•A new strategic defence and security review

•2% of GDP on defence spending

•The maintaining of diplomatic relations with the E.U, and U.N

•Guaranteed access to NHS treatment within 18 weeks and A&E within four hours

•No increase in National Insurance of VAT

•Reduction of the voting age to 16

•Review of the British Constitution

•More accommodation for the homeless

•Private rental controls

•A new stimulus package

•A Brexit deal that 'puts the economy and living standards first.'

•Investment in the British economy

•A new National Investment Bank

•Guaranteed equal rights for workers

'We judge our economy not by the presence of billionaires, but by the absence of poverty'-Jeremy Corbyn

'The Independent Labour Party has pioneered progress in this country, is breaking down sex barriers and class barriers, is giving a lead to the great women’s movement as well as to the great working-class movement. We are here beginning the twenty-second year of our existence. The past twenty-one years have been years of continuous progress, but we are only at the beginning. The emancipation of the worker has still to be achieved and just as the ILP in the past has given a good, straight lead, so shall the ILP in the future, through good report and through ill, pursue the even tenor of its way, until the sunshine of Socialism and human freedom break forth upon our land.'-James Keir Hardie, Founder of the Labour Party



As you know Emilrose, I am inclined to vote Labour in the coming election this Thursday. However, before I do so, I think it is vital to try and be vicarious, to try and see the Tory position and the limitations of those who I will likely be voting for. I know this will be a challenge, since when I searched ‘reasons to vote Tory’ into an incognito Google tab, pages suspiciously came up for why I should not vote Tory.

Regardless of which, my argument will be twofold; it will focus on some of the strengths of the Tory party currently as well as some of the infirmities of Labour (taking how our party system seems to take the either/or position in that only a Labour or Conservative government can get into power as the dominant political force).

Labour Party

Corbyn, his history rooted in political activism, has not had any major roles in senior government. So, although his ability to negotiate at the Brexit talks is well in line with his experience, the general administration of senior government will be new to him. At one of the busiest times our government has faced in recent history, Corbyn will not have any time to inaugurate himself into some of the functions of government currently alien to him as an adversarial but not acting politician. The one thing to May’s credit is her political experience: even if you dispute the decisions she has made, she knows how to navigate government. Corbyn, a political outsider, whilst having the appeal of radical change about him in a cultural milieu which is becoming increasingly frustrated by politics, has to be able to penetrate into this system itself in order to function within it. We see this currently: he has gone from tenaciously holding on to his political positions, to gradually conceding them for more central policies (like that of maintaining Trident) and then playing into the political drama. Like Trump, he has voiced encouragement for his opposition to resign right before the election, subtly suggesting that a vote against her is an act of justice. This is just part of a political point-scoring system, where the politician must sell out in order to win votes. Corbyn has had to compromise: he has entered a system and let go of some of his ideals in hope that he will be able to establish others. This type of behaviour in my eyes, makes it clear that there will be no Labour “revolution” (1).

Prior to the election, Corbyn has been quite measured and arid staying clear of such ad hominem attacks whilst he has been portrayed as an indolent, scruffy eccentric (interested in trains and drains). This has led to widespread criticism of the Labour party as failing in their opposition. And, it is true that he hasn’t been as fervent in parliament as he has been during this election campaign. For whatever reason, whether media exposure or his own lack of ability as an opposition leader, there are times he has underrepresented the Labour party and allowed the Tories to dominant much of the political dialogue. From the referendum to Brexit to the calling of this snap election, the Conservatives have been the ones to instigate and lead. Labour has just followed.

Internally, Labour is dividing into two political stances. There are not only dissenters to Corbyn’s leadership within government, but those with radically different political positions (2). The adversarial layout of government is designed to see parties conflict with each other; the fear is that in the House of Commons, Corbyn will be fighting on two fronts. He will be fighting against exterior powers (other parties and the House of Lords) as well as from opposition within his own government.

Additionally, one of the only legitimate reasons not to vote Labour this Thursday seems to be incarnated in the form of Diane Abbott. My attitude on her ability to become Home Secretary, is that she rather lacks it. This I would hold to be a problem with our political system however: by voting for the greatest policies, you also employ people you would not vote for individually. A package system of politics which has seen the likes of Jeremy Hunt and Gove tyrannise their government Departments against the specialist desires of medical and education workers across the country seems moronic. As does employing Abbott as Home Secretary. Labour, playing her down (3) as they did Ken Livingstone, for their own political representation is not ideal. This is political subterfuge, deceit: a vote for Labour is a vote for all of its members, whether they be astute and diligent workers or not. In employing the entire Labour party, we should not just be faced with the likes of Corbyn as the charismatic leader (in Weber’s sense of the term) acting as if a symbol of his entire administration. England does not operate as America does: Corbyn is both defined and limited by his administration, party politics, rather than having the selective power of Trump to hire as his pleases (only the most significant needing Senate approval). Hiding certain aspects of the Labour party is like hiding damp in a house, in hopes that prospectful buyers will purchase it anyway. At least with the Tories, we know the faces who we will be getting.

The Conservative Party

The alliterative phrase ‘strong and stable’ leadership was chosen for good reason by the background Tory writers; not only is it memorable, but it simultaneously props up the Conservatives whilst suggesting that the Labour party are devoid of these virtues. The conservative party, whilst no dream-team, is dominated by vocational politicians with a copious amount of political experience. From BoJo to Rees-Mogg, these are well-educated men who are far more politically experienced than Labour politicians. In fact, intuitively, it is much easier to name Conservative than Labour politicians (with the exception of perhaps the Eagle sisters and Dennis Skinner). The Tories have a grip on the media as they have the memorable characters within their party. Such gravitas is essential in running government; one needs character in order to interact and make impressions on people. This of course says nothing of their administrative abilities, but personality is a useful and important attribute to possess as a politician. The ability to coerce, lead, and react to others.

As a party, the Tories are vanished as being more professional than Labour politicians; it is surely this representation we want across seas rather than that of division and activism. In terms of priority, surely, we should side with May’s strategy for the Brexit talks (revealing and therefore conceding little) and her experience with the EU rather than siding with a peace advocate. Brexit is centred around the colonist rhetoric that England will make its own way and dominate as a great and independent nation; it is fundamentally not a peaceful strategy but that of pioneering. Talks of trade should not be centred on reaching just amicable relations with the EU, but advantageous relations. May has been able to deliver these. Take the arms trade, the massive global stimulant for all economies, by signing agreements with the autocratic Saudi Arabi, May has been able to generate high profits for the UK whilst simultaneously perpetuating a warfare that enables more economic stimulation advancing the war effort. War has always been one of the best economic stimulants, if done right. Anyhow, by abstaining from weapon sales, we just allow other nations to gain the profits of the Arms Trade. There is no multilateral ban on it.

I will respond with some of the positives and negatives of the Tory Manifesto next round.

What concerned me most about both party Manifestos however, was their lack of academic content; they are wrote as grandiloquent speeches for the easy access of voters denying the academics of our society to enter a fair dialogue of opposition against them. Discourse is operating on the level of cogency, where even new-fangled colloquialisms like ‘sound-bites’ are becoming ‘sound-bites’ and politics is reduced to what things sound like rather than what they mean. People are told the reasons why they should oppose certain parties and then relay these: voters are not thinking independently and non-partisan sources are scarce. In both Manifestos, consistently, the most frequent words are ‘we will’. And, in fact, “We will [verb] X”, seems to be the formulaic response of politicians these days. At essence, both Corbyn and May are promising that “We will make Britain great again.” Such retroaction, whether it be restoring the NHS or nationalised industries, is backward-looking rather than innovative, suggesting that England is in decline.

Debate Round No. 1



Con begins in his argument by coming up with the rather unusual stance that Jeremy Corbyn is somehow a sell-out; I would note that he contradicts himself later in his argument when he references ideological division that has existed within the party (largely which he has overplayed, but I will address that later.)

It is clear from policy, that Corbyn has indeed not changed or sold-out on any of the issues that he's fought so tirelessly over the years for. On the issue of trident, he still plans to work towards global nuclear disarmament and has plans to employ a 'Minister for Peace', if he becomes Prime Minister [16.]

There are obviously certain practical obstacles that would be encountered in actually not renewing trident, which thus why Corbyn has pledged to renew it. The majority of his party support that position, the majority of the country support that position, and, I'm sure as Con will agree with me on, we are living in (still) challenging times. It's far more sensible to try and achieve nuclear disarmament in the entire world, than to refuse to renew trident within your own country. However, there has been absolutely no ideological change from Corbyn; he still wants to achieve a world with peace, and he still believes that diplomatic corporation between countries is what should be aspired to. Which goes back to my point about the E.U; unlike Theresa May, he wants the U.K to have a functioning and workable relationship with Europe.

Con then brings up Corbyn having no experience in office, but this statement is devoid of any merit based on the fact that Corbyn has decades of political experience--as an MP he spent years working in parliament, and for two years has been leader of the Labour Party. In fact, as a *leader*, Corbyn has in fact had more experience and preparation than May, who only become leader of the Conservative Party (as a result: Prime Minister) under a year ago, after the Brexit vote. Jeremy Corbyn is also arguably more 'politically active', due to the amount of issues he's been directly involved in and political causes that he has penetrated over the years; something Con previously noted himself in his argument. The first article that Con uses is states in the title that Jeremy Corbyn 'will be a strong and stable leader', and has additional statements within it that more or less benefit my argument.


Onto Cons next points, he states that the due to the lack of Ad-hominem attacks from Corbyn, that he has somehow feel under the radar and been outshone by the Conservatives in terms of media attention alone; which could not be further from the truth. Unlike May who has basically ignored the public (just as she did with Brexit), he has been ardently campaigning across the country and has in fact attracted vast numbers of people. As one his latest speeches shows, he is actually displaying a great deal of passion [17.]

This particular speech is a clear example of just how dedicated Corbyn is a politician; and in-touch with real causes (I.E poverty, lack of housing, lack of education investment, lack of opportunity among the less wealthy, etc.) At the end of the speech, his tone becomes more impassioned and he urges everyone to ask one another: 'what kind of country, what kind of world, what kind of society do (they) want to live in'? Following the question with whether they want to live in a country, a world, and a society of unfairness and injustice.

So on the contrary to Cons assertion, the Labour Party has gained significant momentum, to the point where a clear Conservative majority looks doubtful. And let's take note: this momentum was not gained by personally attacking the other election candidate or Ad-hominum attacks, but by ferociously and passionately attacking the policies of the other party; policies that have decreased the life-quality of millions of people across the U.K, policies, that will further damage our future if they are enacted yet again. *This* is how Labour has attracted so many people.

I would argue that it's somewhat absurd for Con to say that the Labour party have simply 'followed', instead of 'instigating and leading' themselves. For one, they are not (yet) the party leading the country, and for another, their presence in Parliament has indeed been an extremely important one. Were in not for the Labour party, the U.K would've taken military action against Syria in 2013 [18.]

In fact, were it not for the Labour party, there's many topics and issues that would not have been at the forefront of politics within the last seven years (since the Conservatives took power.)

It was the Labour party that put forward a new bill in an attempt to prevent NHS privatisation, back in 2014. [19.]
With every policy proposal that the Conservative party makes, there is Labour there to criticise it--and do all they can do reverse or alter it. Con mentions Brexit, but it was actually Corbyn who campaigned to remain more than May

Con also mentions division with the Labour party, but this is something that literally all parties have to some degree. And, Labour actually has it to a much lesser degree now. After winning two separate leadership contests, it has basically been accepted that Corbyn is leader and he has the support of all Labour politicians during this election, and some notable key allies within the party. This is a time in which Labour has been working together to get the best result from this election--which is a Corbyn leadership. In addition, the party is not lacking experienced politicians as Con states, it is quite the opposite. The Mayor for Manchester (Andy Burnam) is a Labour politician [20.], I include this as Manchester is one of the most prominent cities within the U.K. Let's not forget that Labour are one of the oldest and most politically active parties within the U.K, hence why they generally among the two competing parties in *every* election.

Con seems to think that having Dianne Abbot within the cabinet will also be detrimental, but I disagree as her method is yet to be tried and tested. We have an even greater example with Jeremy Hunt, someone who, like Con says, has tyrannised his government (health) department and caused multiple strikes across the U.K, which thus delayed the treatment of many people. Health professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.), overall, have nothing but the utmost disrespect for Hunt. A YouGov poll found that Hunt was the most disliked politician of all parties [21.]

This is all compounded by the fact that both David Cameron and now Theresa May, simply refuse to get rid of him. She has no plans to sack Jeremy Hunt at all after this election (if she remains.), which may well provide reason alone not to vote Conservative.

Con alludes to a popularity that Conservative politicians supposedly have, but I do not see any evidence of this. He references Boris Johnson, who places himself in positions of continuous ridicule, and is quoted as saying things like this: 'some people are too stupid to get on in life.' [22.]

In the article, he further states that economic disparity is basically to be embraced--by referring free markets and so on.

Those such as Boris Johnson and Jacob-Rees-Mogg are perfect examples of politicians who are out-of-touch with modern U.K society. This particular BBC article briefly illuminates all other offensive comments that Johnson has made, alluding back to to one statement from 2016 regarding former U.S' president Barack Obama's nationality. He further remarked that because Obama was 'part Kenyan', he had an 'ancestral dislike' for Britain. In 2008, Johnson also labelled black people as 'piccanninies' and exclaimed that they had 'watermelon' smiles. If people do decide to vote for the Conservatives tomorrow (June 8th), then they will be voting for this man to retain his role as foreign well as for Jeremy Hunt to retain his position as Health Secretary.

Concerning Cons final point, it seems an odd contention to make that manifestos are somehow devoid of 'academic' content, as the main purpose is to provide basic policy information and get the party agenda across as simply as possible--so that all members of the public can read it if they so wish. But, there is really anything to suggest to me that people in academic fields of study (or otherwise) cannot 'enter a fair dialogue' on each manifesto; the polices are they be observed and assessed.

I will leave a link here of Labour's 128 page Manifesto [23.]

Tomorrow, the U.K will be voting. After seven years of severe austerity and cuts to vital public services, I genuinely do hope that people make the right choice. After all this is an election is one in which you are left with a choice of 'yes' or 'no' to the NHS being privatised, to schools being further underfunded, to the elderly losing what benefits they actually have, to the disabled being demoralised, to disenfranchising young people, to our environment not being treated the way it a whole range of things that quite frankly require a 'no' answer, if we are to live in a better society.


The Conservative Manifesto

Sifting through these eighty-four pages (Orwellian or what?) there are some key ideological points I completely disagree with like the naming of ‘fast-changing technology’ as one of ‘great challenges’ this country faces on page seven, demonising all those against Tory regulations of the internet as terrorist sympathises as outlined in their chapter ‘Prosperity and Security in a Digital Age’. With such double-speak as talking of ‘A free media’ (p.80) and the stating: ‘We will be consistent in our approach to regulation of online and offline media’ is nothing short of ludicrous. There should be profound suspicion of those who use tools of authoritarianism in the name of protection. They basically promise everything in their Manifesto, from gender equality to ‘homes for all’ (p.70) by ‘aiming’ for lots of ideal goals, they don’t explain how they are going to reach.

Their ‘starting point is that we should take decisions on the basis of what works’ (p.7) reminding me somewhat of a line from Shaw’s ‘Saint Joan’: ‘Do what was done last time and that be your rule, eh?’. But there is some use in holding credence for this maxim: it is definitely stable. It reverts back to a safe way of doing things, where the economy can be predictably regulated. Indeed, the deficit (the rate of debt) is indeed stabilising rather than increasing, which the Tory policies as well as the natural development of the global economy has contributed to. The radical change Corbyn wishes to introduce will have a destabilising effect: small businesses may suffer from the raised minimum wage, the transaction from private businesses to nationalised businesses are a living question mark to the jobs of thousands and quality of these services. Such radical change is likely to affect the pound as well. Since Brexit, the pound has been on the decline: uncertainty in a country's future often leads to a loss of faith as far as the stock markets are concerned: “if the Conservatives tumble in the polls, expect some volatility in the foreign exchange markets.”

Now briefly, let us look at some of the promises of the Tory Manifesto:

‘Corporation Tax is due to fall to seventeen per cent by 2020 – the lowest rate of any developed economy – and we will stick to that plan, because it will help to bring huge investment and many thousands of jobs to the UK.’ P14

‘A good tax system is not just about the headline rates of tax, however, but about its simplicity. [...] We will therefore simplify the tax system.’ P14 (through initiatives like the Red Tape challenge)

‘We will reconvene the Board of Trade with a membership specifically charged with ensuring that we increase exports from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England’ p15 (encouraging economic internalism as a stimulant for growth).

‘A new Conservative government will continue to increase the National Living Wage to 60 per cent of median earnings by 2020’ p16 (much more secure than promising a £10 minimum wage regardless of its practical limitations).

HS2 ‘£40 billion into transport improvements’, ‘We want almost every car and van to be zero-emission by 2050 – and will invest £600 million by 2020 to help achieve it.’ P23

Promoting a devolution, or localisation of government replacing the Barnett Formula.

‘We will therefore develop the shale industry in Britain’, using natural gas for economic growth in a way which does not entice fracking or detrimental effects to the environment

Going against human slave labour, a principal which seems to be close to May’s heart p40

£178 billion investment into military equipment in the next decade p41

And an issue I personally take interest in, the prison system:

P45 ‘The £15 billion annual cost to society of reoffending shows we have so much more to do to make the penal system work better. Prisons must become places of safety, discipline and hard work, places where people are helped to turn their lives around. They should help prisoners learn English, maths and the work skills they need to get a job when they leave prison, whilst providing the help prisoners require to come off drugs and deal with mental health problems.

We will invest over £1 billion to modernise the prison estate, replacing the most dilapidated prisons and creating 10,000 modern prison places. We will reform the entry requirements, training, management and career paths of prison officers. We will create a new legal framework for prisons, strengthening the inspectorate and ombudsman to provide sharper external scrutiny.

Community punishments do not do enough to prevent crime and break the cycle of persistent offending. So we will create a national community sentencing framework that punishes offenders and focuses on the measures that have a better chance of turning people around and preventing crime, such as curfews and orders that tackle drug and alcohol abuse. We will introduce dedicated provision for women offenders.’

Whilst I profoundly disagree with the last paragraph, an expansion of prison staffing and the raised quality and opportunities in UK prisons is one of the measures which is required to better the prison system. There have been several riots in the past year because of the low quality of prison environments.

And of course,

‘we will increase NHS spending by a minimum of £8 billion in real terms over the next five years’ p66

(with perfect ambiguity of what these ‘real terms’ are or whether the government are investing in the NHS or going to just promote the NHS spending what it already possesses).

When I criticised both Manifestos, it is because they are both written as simple and coercive propaganda. They don’t tell one what they are deconstructing, they promise to deliver ideal goals and pejoratively attack the other party. By not using simple academic language, writing as though in speeches, they deny the British people the chance to argue with them knowing what they are going to do precisely. Instead of saying things like ‘fairness is integral to our values, and as such we will deliver X’, they should be saying ‘there is this law currently in place, this is its problems and this is what we are going to do about it’. The Manifestos should be much more arid, terse, and precise.
Their Manifesto:

Nevertheless, onto the rebuttals,

The quote Emilrose gave, assumedly from Corbyn, actually exemplified one of my points: '....what would Manchester have done without the NHS?' He is using cogency and the emotions of people to upholster his own political ideologies, in reference to the Manchester bombing, acting his part in the election drama rather than seeing how this event should be off-limits to political point scoring. This utilisation of events is coercive and wrong.

My opponent does likewise in arguing how national debt has actually increased over Tory administration and how they are principally to blame. This is a reductive way of viewing the economy. The Tories have reduced the deficit, have ensured that the economy is no longer retracting. Increased debts are a natural product of UK economy post the recession and part of globalised economics. The Tories cannot be held accountable for increased national debts: they would have increased under any administration. We cannot attribute all that happens within a temporal period as the responsibility of the government: it is after all, a limited institution of humans rather than all-powerful controllers. The large amount the government is borrowing and spending to pay off prior loans is what every other European country is doing right now. Why then is this the Tories fault in particular?

The NHS Crisis
The fact that Labour instituted the NHS, does not mean that we can approve of new Labour's outlook on healthcare; this would be the genetic fallacy. It has changed since 1948 and radically so. A privatisation of health care would allow for more specialist care rather than put the onus onto government departments alienated from day-to-day hospital life: it would empower businesses to come up with the most expedient and quickest way to treat patients. This is of course, what a long-term Tory government would lead to. A largely privatised NHS system. The Tories have promised to invest that 8 billion into the NHS but compared to Labour this is inconsequential. The only argument against it can be that the corporeate tax will make the economy suffer. It will encourage businesses to use places like Ireland (or arguably the Isle of Man) where the rates are lower as tax havens, thereby discouraging UK businesses. It will also make things slightly harder for small businesses, who are already struggling to compete with the modern giants of industry.

As someone with a large tuition loan, I am slightly reluctant to see them go on an individual perspective. They do provide Universities with the funds to expand and offer better services. But, also, to only raise tuition fees to 9k for 5 years would mean that all students who went to University within these years would be at a disadvantage. Corbyn has promised to look into reducing them, but this is a false prospect: tuition fees were a government accounting trick of reducing the deficit by saying that they were owed large amounts of money from the youth. It was the ability to tax students for their entire life a small amount of their earnings, with interest rates on them so high that they would for most never realistically be paid off. At least previously these students had the conciliation of 50% of the population being on the same boat. Labour's 123-page Manifesto, is unfair to these students.

Debate Round No. 2


Closing Argument:

I would note that Con is supposed to be arguing *for* Conservative, but is himself recognizing the countless flaws within their manifesto; as well as the fact the party has some deeply unpopular politicians within it. Here is an article from 2016 just to highlight again what has occurred under the watch of Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt [24.]

The dispute, which is over working hours for junior doctors, was even stated as being the worst in 70 years:

'This marks a significant extension of the worst industrial dispute in the 70-year history of the National Health Service.' [25.]

Even a pro-Tory news outlet such as the Telegraph had an article headlined: 'Impact of junior doctors' strikes will be even worse than predicted.'

Following it with this statement:

'A new analysis showed compiled by NHS Providers estimated more than 500,000 operations will have to be cancelled and four million appointments lost in the rolling programme of industrial action leading up to Christmas.'


Though this occurred in 2016, it was not so long ago and is in fact still affecting the National Health Service this year.

Back in January this year, a Junior Doctor named Nadia Masood more or less stated that the new contract, enforced by Jeremy Hunt, is only serving to dissuade junior doctors from further practicing in the NHS: [26.]

To finally complete my argument about the NHS, this is an article discussing the recent 'winter crisis' (the one I had previously referenced) and the fact that one woman died of a heart attack while being left on a patient trolley at Worcestershire Royal Hospital, a hospital in which my own mother has previously worked at as a nurse. Another patient, was found hanged on a ward [27.]

I really cannot emphasize enough the need to weigh in the NHS as part of ones decision at the voting ballot; it genuinely is one of the most important and integral things in this country, thus, I hope people will recognize that it simply cannot be further underfunded and understaffed.


Now onto the rest of my closing argument; Con admits that the Tory manifesto encourages more internet regulations, and that it demonizes those against them. But then alludes to policies that are indeed promised by Labour but on a more far-reaching scale. [28.]

Indeed, as far the new proposed wage is concerned, small business will not suffer. Corbyn had said there will be pathways around it for them.

He also pledged to help protect small businesses from larger companies [29.]

Con asserts that corporation tax falling is a good thing; but how can that be so when other people, like disadvantaged disabled people, are having their own benefits cut? Theresa May has also refused to rule out more cuts to the disabled [30.]

In addition, how is justified to cut corporation tax and then cut vital services such as the NHS and the education sector? Con should answer that.

The policy against 'slave labour' is also an interesting one, as the Tories have tried to coerce citizens of their own country into working for what is essentially nothing [31.]

The Labour Party also pledges a higher investment amount for the NHS [32.]

I can quite honestly say that 8 billion within five years, will absolutely *not* address the long-term monetary and staff cuts that have taken place over the last 7 years--far more is required, and the Tories could get some of that through not providing yet more tax cuts on big businesses.

Regarding the quote that I used in round one, this was in fact said by this member of the public, who believes that the NHS should be a priority [33.]

Con then proceeds to make a point about the economy, but the fact we are in such high-levels of national debt should be alarming. [34.]

Con also argues for privatization of the NHS, but this is devoid of any substantive reasoning on his behalf. It seems that Con has also overlooked my argument about the origins of the NHS--but to make it clear, it was only ever meant to be a public service. The Founding Principles of the NHS are:

•that it meet the needs of everyone
•that it be free at the point of delivery
•that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay

This is why privatization is such a severely abhorrent idea in regards to the NHS.


The official NHS Constitution also states this:

'The NHS belongs to all of us.'


(Under Patients and the Public)

Now to address Cons last contention on education; this is again slightly redundant. Firstly he has dropped key points that I have made on elementary education, instead focusing solely on university education, which has been negatively impacted since student fees were increased. Any reader can read sources in round one to get a further insight into that--but it is obvious that the most affected are working class students; these high fees only serve to be disincentives for them.

To close my argument:

Con has failed to really show why anyone should vote for the Conservatives, himself admitting that certain policies were unfair, and that their manifesto (which is shorter than Labour's) was amiss. He has also not addressed *some* Labour policies in round one that I highlighted. Therefore, any prospective voters should vote Pro.

Thank you.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 3 years ago
Perhaps you were just doing such a great job of denouncing the Tories, that they censored the internet and took down
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Yeah it's not your fault. It does certainly seem that way...pretty disappointing really.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 3 years ago
Apologies for R3, but the site has been down...
The pound did drop. The Tory Manifesto remained awful. And, now a minority government--probably--maybe?
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Dam :/
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 3 years ago
I'm been pretty busy today with election-based activity, so we shall see relatively soon--
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 3 years ago
Ah, but he could have done that prior to the Manchester bombings. You either have to conclude that he was using the emotions of Manchester as a springboard, or was incompetent as an opposition leader not making the criticism beforehand.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
I don't think he actually blamed the cuts as such for the Manchester attack, but was illuminating that the cuts she has made to the police force (which presently stand at 20%) do not help in any way--once again he was highlighting the lack of reasonable justification for defunding and destaffing vital public services; it's common sense that the less resources the police have, the less safe we are.

People should keep in mind that May was Home Secretary before being PM, and more specifically that she made *a lot* of errors.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 3 years ago
Thanks for the clarification... though, I still think his behaviour after Manchester, suggesting that it was at least in part May's fault for the cuts in policing and then subtly stating that she should resign was completely backhanded behaviour. The latter bit especially.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Btw, that quote was not from Corbyn. I couldn't include the woman's name due to character limit:

Obviously it is not quite in his style to say anything like that.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 3 years ago
The difference between Marx & Engels and modern Manifestos, is that the former were more theoretic and had supplementary books of narrative theory explaining their newly devised definitions and the latter offer promises centred around existing ideas, libertarian ideas like 'equality', with no concrete definitions behind them. The former additionally had no effect upon its publication.

Again, I think the Labour Manifesto much better than the Conservative Manifesto but both are guilty to some extent of meaningless paragraphs. For instance, 'Labour will develop capital investment schemes and other incentives to encourage investment into the UK, especially into target areas identified by the industrial strategy. We will champion the UK as a safe investment environment.' (p.31) or painstakingly obvious paragraphs:
'Improving the quality of social care is a vital part of providing dignity in older age and independence and support for people who are vulnerable or have a disability or a mental health condition.' (p.72)
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.