Darth Vader Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Because anything Labour does or suggests has the "Merde-as touch" - everything they touch turns to, well, you know the French! :hihi: Ha, ha, ha. That's "he-lary-arse". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Such rubbish, as usual. If they hate the poor why did Frank Field join them in that poverty review? Frank Field - from one of the poorest Labour areas in the country? Why did the Tories ring fence Sure Start from day one when every leftie tried to claim the Tories would axe it? Ring fenced to the extent that 250 Sure Start Centres are to close? http://www.daycaretrust.org.uk/pages/250-sure-start-childrens-centres-face-closure-within-a-year.html Mmm that is some protection.. remind me to not feel secure in future when I am ring fenced and told I won't be axed. The fact is the coalition has gone for a ratio of 4 cuts to 1 for tax rises, and the tax increases to be largely VAT the least progressive tax that was an option. Those cuts are to services that affect the poor. As the Telegraph said a year ago George Osborne should be careful of implementing the Class War he and the right want.... All the evidence is he is not in the slightest bothered about such perceptions. This is an opportunity for the Tories to roll back the state and sell off its assets to their friends, not even for profit or economic reasons but because they want to undermine the democratic delivery of services and take us back to a victorian model of delivery via rhetoric around a big society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 Such rubbish, as usual. If they hate the poor why did Frank Field join them in that poverty review? Frank Field - from one of the poorest Labour areas in the country? Why did the Tories ring fence Sure Start from day one when every leftie tried to claim the Tories would axe it? Let us hope that this ringfence is a bit more sturdy than the one which Smarmy Dave put around the NHS. Remember 'we'll cut the deficit not the NHS' as big a liar as Clegg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Why don't the ConDems do what Labour are suggesting and reintroduce Labours Bankers windfall tax to promote economic growth???. Why would a new govt. take advice from members of the previous govt. the electorate had rejected ? They had 13 years to gain the enduring confidence of the British public but failed. Ed Balls was one of the chief architects of that failure but now believes he has the right to suggest' govt. policy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 No but they imposed this tax on those who are most able to pay and who caused the credit crunch in the first place, and is what this thread is about. And here was me thinking it was another of your regular propaganda whingathons. Because they are Tories, they live for blaming the poor and making them suffer, the fact they are doing so to protect the vested interests of their backers is just an added bonus to them. Of course - because the conservatives split there time between twirling their mustachioes while cackling evilly and finding peasants to kick. Do you really have such a cartoonish hackneyed view of politics!? Although it may not suit your politics, not a single government is to be blamed for the economic fiasco we are in - the blame lies well and truly at the door of the banks, nationally, and internationally. Although it may not suit your politics there is a pretty unhealthy deficit ignoring the bank bail out. While ignoring the role of the banks and blaming the government entirely is foolish equally so is ignoring the role of the government and blaming the financial institutions entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 1Why would a new govt. take advice from members of the previous govt. the electorate had rejected ? 2 They had 13 years to gain the enduring confidence of the British public but failed. Ed Balls was one of the chief architects of that failure but now believes he has the right to suggest' govt. policy ? 1) Through most of these 13 years they didn't need to raise additional dough (as I suspect you already know) when it WAS needed, in their last year in power the windfall tax WAS introduced. 2) I think many people are now realising they made a huge mistake in placing their trust in two partys' who are both as guilty of misleading the electorate in their manifestos as each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 And here was me thinking it was another of your regular propaganda whingathons. And? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Of course - because the conservatives split there time between twirling their mustachioes while cackling evilly and finding peasants to kick. Do you really have such a cartoonish hackneyed view of politics!? they don't all have moustaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Thankyou An..................archist! Your logic escapes me, but there again so does your grasp of economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Ring fenced to the extent that 250 Sure Start Centres are to close? http://www.daycaretrust.org.uk/pages/250-sure-start-childrens-centres-face-closure-within-a-year.html Do you have any better sources than the biased "Daycare Trust" who are just scarermongering. This BBC link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12301690 clearly states that the "closure" is based on operator's fears and thoughts and not based on anything other than that. The money is still being provided by the government to councils. If the councils choose not to spend the money given to them on Surestart that's not the government's problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.