taxman Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 I can think of one thing the condems have done for me personally, apart from the rise in the personal allowance. They have re-invested more money into HMRC rather than Gordon Brown's policy of constant and unremitting cuts. The money reinvested has allowed a recruitment drive and promotion. For me. FOR ME! For which I should be grateful, but I still wouldn't vote for them. Just because I've done well doesn't mean I pull up the drawbridge and let all those behind me drown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 I don't expect the government to provide for me. That's where so many other people have got it wrong. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 19:34 ---------- Did you support the minimum wage that Labour introduced and was vehemently opposed by the Cons? The minimum wage is an irrelevence when coupled with mass immigration that Labour introduced. There are far more people working for low wages now (or in 2010) than there was in 1997 before Labour took over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 what good/bad things has the condems done for you personally/someone you know/or for the good of the country ? They ensured that Ed Balls didn't get his incompetent hands on the country's cheque book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 A few key successes I reckon: 1. A tough stance on Europe. We need to get back to basics and return to the EU being a trading bloc first and foremost. It should never have been allowed to progress towards economic and political union as much as it has. 2. They have managed to keeps the global financial wolves from the door to an extent. At great expense though. We'll have to see how things pan out from now. 3. Welfare reform. The fundamental principles driving simplification of welfare under universal credit were sound. But blimey what a mess they are making - I hope they can get it back on track because the core concept is so right it deserves not to fail. It's one key area where the parties all need to work together. 4. Housing benefit cap. I really hope this does what I think it will. It could kill off the worst bits of the dodgy buy to let sector. There. A slightly positive post about the coalition for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 10, 2013 Author Share Posted February 10, 2013 They ensured that Ed Balls didn't get his incompetent hands on the country's cheque book yes osbournes done wonders with it hasnt he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 A lot better than Ed Balls, or any Labour chancellor would've done, that's for sure. All Labour know is spend spend spend, without any thought of how to pay for it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 10, 2013 Author Share Posted February 10, 2013 A lot better than Ed Balls, or any Labour chancellor would've done, that's for sure. All Labour know is spend spend spend, without any thought of how to pay for it all. so tell us how good osbournes doing without spending/borrowing money http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20618576 :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 I don't expect the government to provide for me. That's where so many other people have got it wrong. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 19:34 ---------- The minimum wage is an irrelevence when coupled with mass immigration that Labour introduced. There are far more people working for low wages now (or in 2010) than there was in 1997 before Labour took over. Why then when it was introuduced did big business fight it along with their puppets the Cons? Because it was going to cost them big bucks, because they were going to have to payout more in wages. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 20:24 ---------- A lot better than Ed Balls, or any Labour chancellor would've done, that's for sure. All Labour know is spend spend spend, without any thought of how to pay for it all. The Cons said upto every election before 2010,that they would match Labours public spending, so up to the point of the Bankers credit crunch, things would have been the same. Labour borrowed billions in bailing out the Cons banking friends, are you telling us that the Tories would have acted differently??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 What the Tories said when they were out of power is irrelevent. As is what Labour say now. It's very easy for parties to promise things while in opposition, a lot harder to back it up when they are in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 What the Tories said when they were out of power is irrelevent. As is what Labour say now. It's very easy for parties to promise things while in opposition, a lot harder to back it up when they are in power. In other words they wouldn't have done any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.