Although I can't seem to find a link for a video for this speech, like I could with Nick Clegg's, I can provide you with a writeup: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7631925.stm

Interesting parts (for me, atleast):

"And so in April a Labour Britain will become the first country in the whole world to offer free universal check ups for everyone over 40."

"Whilst a year ago only 1 in 10 patients had access to GPs at weekends and in the evening. Now almost half of all practices are open and by the end of next year the majority will be open even longer."

"Since the war nearly one third of Britain's Nobel prizes have been for our genius in medicine."

"And so let me tell you today that the unprecedented 15 billion pounds we are investing in medical research will be directed to turning the major advances of the last few years into actual treatments and cures for NHS patients."

"And so I can announce today for those in our nation battling cancer from next year they will not pay prescription charges at all."

" Alan Johnson and I will also bring forward new plans to help people to stay longer in their own homes and provide greater protection against the costs of care"

"The measures we have taken this year alone will help lift two hundred and fifty thousand children out of poverty."

"Today, with Beverley Hughes leading as children's minister, there are children's centres opening in every community to serve 3 million children who a few years ago had nothing, and free nursery education for three and four year olds. 

But our ambitions must be greater still. 

I want Britain to take its place among the leading nations in pre-school services, and so I pledge here today in Manchester starting in over 30 communities, and then over 60, we will, stage by stage, extend free nursery places for two year olds for every parent who wants them in every part of the country backed by high quality, affordable childcare for all."

---

Lots of promises, and some firm dates for things. Brilliant!

"Whilst a year ago only 1 in 10 patients had access to GPs at weekends and in the evening. Now almost half of all practices are open and by the end of next year the majority will be open even longer."

This problem was caused BY Gordon Brown. He created a pay deal that dramatically increased doctors' pay while giving them the 'choice' of not working evenings/weekends. Of course, most of them did exactly that and stopped working the extra hours, and yet earned more than before.

Now he's had to pay doctors even MORE to get them to work those times again. Result: same coverage time as before but 2-3x the tax money spent on it.

And he's trying to make it look good.

 Well, he's not going to admit something like that: he's hoping that people's memories don't go that far back, and, really, it's going to work.

Did you see the annoucment about every "poor" family getting a free £700 computer and free broadband? Even well-off families can't afford that in this recession! He just keeps making concessions to the "poor" (most of them are unemployed and not motivated to get a job because it actually pays more remain unemployed). We DON'T HAVE child poverty in this country, but he keeps on giving them huge amounts of cash, like EMA (£30 a week for turning up at school, per child whose parents earn less than ~£30,000)

The whole point of having a CAPITALIST economy is that the poorer people aren't meant to get all of the luxuries because they weren't good enough at school and got low-paid jobs. Trying to change through taxation and redistribution that is unfair on the people who've worked hard to get where they are.

1) We don't live in a capitalist economy
2) EMA is a brilliant idea. It gets the people who are only care about earning money now into further and higher education. Which is something this country needs.
3) We DO have child poverty. Just because you don't know it, or can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
4) The people who earn the most, work the least.

1) Yes we do.We certainly don't live in a socialist one. The government is not meant to intefere in the market by redistributing income.

2) Further education is for the people who have the intelligence and skills to do it. The value of it is that those who can do it will go on and do it and so get better qualifications than those who can't do it. This allows them to get better jobs and employers to recognise who the most talented people are. If twice as many people do A-levels due to EMA rather than having the talent for it, the grade boundaries and test standards are lowered to accomodate them. You end up with lots of people getting top marks (AAA at A-level) . The way they 'solve' this is by introducing new grades like A*. These are then devalued until ''most' people achieve them. In the end, employers can't tell who the most talented people are, and so it's not worth trying hard if you're above average because you'll end up with the same marks. I am a Year 12 student and I've felt the effects of this every day since Year 7.

3) OK, we do, but not many (more like 0.1%). Certainly not 10% like Gordon Brown alleges. Poverty is defined as lack of money for basic needs like food, water, shelter, etc. Everyone on minumum wage or unemployment benefit (which everyone should be) is well above this.

4) But, except for a very few super-rich who inherited it, they go to their positions on merit i.e. they deserved to get there based on their aptitude as judged by the free market. The government intefereing with this (beyond actual poverty, obviosuly) disrupts that market, which is bad as the resources of the country are then being used in a suboptimal way which lowers everyone's standard of living on average.

Although I do somewhat agree with you on your last two points (I'm just throwing things out there), I still don't like your first two:

1 - If we were to live in a capitalist society there would be no public sector at all: no NHS, no national education, no road mantainance, no British Armed Forces, no police, no firemen. We cannot live in a capitalist society as there would be anarchy. We live in a mixed economy, in which everyone gets what is required for them to live. The idea is that noone can ever die on the streets.

2 - We are failing the race to become a knowledge based economy. As labour becomes more of a mobile industry thanks to the EU, and globalisation has forced the manufacturing industry east. Our country's economy will need to be based on knowledge, and EMA is a way to getting towards that. Of course, it's not perfect, as it leads to, the devaluation of our grades, but, on a global scale, it can be a lot more beneficial to have everyone achieving these grades, and very few scoring very highly.

At the end of the day, we could debate until the cows come home. It's fairly obvious that we're on different ends of the political scale (I'm basing this from your comment: "The government is not meant to intefere in the market by redistributing income." - whereas, I personally feel that Labour are too right wing).

Ah. I didn't realise that. I'm a libertarian (small government, maximally free economy, maximum social liberties). However, I respect anyone's views as long as they make sense and are their own opinions.

I do think we need a change of government to one that can make decisions consistently, be that left or right. (Labour aren't acting left- or right- wing, they're flip-flopping based on whathever they think will get votes on a given day).

For 1), it's a case of what the country 'ought' to be. If you have your own ideas about that, then that's fine. I'm just anti-ignorance. I agree anarchy is not an option.

For 2), well, it's a case of "will it do more good than harm?". Without studies and evidence, it's impossible to say accurately. Again, it's an opinion thing.

I do think EMA is a good thing, certainly to get to college in my area costs a heck of a lot, either by Stagecoach (monopoly) bus, or South West Trains (Stagecoach monopoly again), and although our family isn't eligible, it's good for people who may not be able to afford the £600 or so each year just to get to college! Yes driving is an option, but I hardly feel people on EMA would be in that position!

Frankly though, I think we do need a new government, if just to get rid of the rot in our current one (lost data, money for peers anyone?), because the opposition has never really been a serious threat since Labour won in 1997 until now.

However I definately disagree with your statement "the people who earn most work the least'. The Tories for starters want to get rid of inheritance tax which helps combat that. And my brother is looking to become a docotor (doing GCSEs atm), and he needs average of A for GCSEs, AAA at A-level, and then has to spend 5 years doing a medicine course, then another several years training as a trainee doctor, so frankly for him, if he does earn £250k or whatever it won't be until he's like 35-40, and he will have worked hard for that!

No one has free universal checkups for people over 40?

Shoudln't that be part of universal healthcare? I mean preventitive healthcare is just cost effective.

Free Checkups should be common sense.