Government announces that free Swimming for Pensioners and Kids to end!

[Titanic99]

So during a time when there is a massive spending deficit, you'd want to offer free swimming for everyone? Seriously?

 

In the context of a much fairer Tax system and in recognition that a lot of this additional cost could be offset against savings in Healthcare, then Yes I would.

[JFKvsNixon]

They've blamed the previous Government for overspending generally and as around 25% of this is on Local Government spending then it is reasonable to assume that part of the criticism is there.

 

No it is not reasonable, because the local government had no say in the amount of money given to it by the previous Labour government.

[Titanic99]

No it is not reasonable, because the local government had no say in the amount of money given to it by the previous Labour government.

 

So using the re-development of Parkhill for example.

 

Who is to blame for what seems to be the case now that the initial cost is going to be reduced significantly.

 

So should the Council be blamed for asking for more money than was needed, or Central Government for giving it.

[JFKvsNixon]

In the context of a much fairer Tax system and in recognition that a lot of this additional cost could be offset against savings in Healthcare, then Yes I would.

 

When would this money be offset against spending, and how much money would be offset?

 

Why is this the most successful and cost effective way of encouraging children to exercise, and is there not better and cheaper way to achieve the same results?

[sccsux]

So, back to your claim. When have I lied?

 

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what has been said?

As wednesday certainly didn't accuse you of lying, as proven below:

To be honest he has a much better record than you for getting things right.

[wednesday1]

That's not what was said, is it:

 

 

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what has been said?

 

 

Do you really think I would stoop so low?

[JFKvsNixon]

So using the re-development of Parkhill for example.

 

Who is to blame for what seems to be the case now that the initial cost is going to be reduced significantly.

 

So should the Council be blamed for asking for more money than was needed, or Central Government for giving it.

 

Your example just does not add up as there may be lots of different reasons as to why the costs of a major redevelopment fluctuates.

 

Surely though central government should be held accountable for the amount money that they grant to local governments, then local governments should then be held accountable for what they do with the money?

[Berberis]

I think you'll find the figure I reported was 9 Trillion pounds!

 

I think you will find you have never given any credible evidence to that claim, even after repeated requests you do so.

 

Your claims are lies and you keep perpetrating them even after being shown you're wrong. Actually I think that’s against forum rules as you are openly attempting to deceive people.

 

Now, for the last time, please link the official figure used to back up your claim.

[eckerslike]

What is a house worth £200 thousand with no debt against it worth then?

 

To the government sweet FA.

[Berberis]

That's not what was said though, is it:

 

 

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what has been said?

 

No, no you’re right. In actual fact wednesday1 was not backing up titanic’s claims, but was going slightly off topic to try and attack me, not for the first time I might add.

 

My comments were about titanic’s blatant lies, while wednesday1 wants to talk about predictions that are subject to interpretation, that’s hardly the something though.

 

What little pleasure wednesday1 gets out of the scale of labours defeat makes little difference and is off topic.