So, people really are dying because of the Condems 'austerity'.

[martok]

What "crap"?

 

Here's just one example of the stupidity.

 

Councils waste millions on ineffective wind turbines that will take 190 years to repay.

[Oh Carol]

Really? Care to explain who those people are? It's certainly not any of the middle class public sector workers.

 

What about the bankers, who George Osborne campaigned for to receive uncapped bonuses, who paid themselves over £80bn, which is the same amount that the government took from us in austerity cuts!!

 

Can't let those rich pilloks who put us in this mess suffer now, can we??

I believe that given the chance to make their fortune as Tony Blair has done,

the vast majority of Socialists would take the same opportunity once they climb down from their faux moralistic high ground.

[JFKvsNixon]

Here's just one example of the stupidity.

 

Councils waste millions on ineffective wind turbines that will take 190 years to repay.

 

How many wind turbines have the council built?

[Mr Bloom]

Read against the evidence, that sticks in the craw which would be an unusual definition of "palatable". It's a typical government statement which states quite blatantly what is meant but which the wider public read quite differently. It's the "you" in the first sentence which is intended as to mean "government won't so you must". Personally I don't have a problem looking after the people I know about but there are many who fall through that social net*.

 

It's the bit of Adam Smith that governments conveniently forget about. They remember the first two- national defence and law and order but forget the third, “the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.”** because they would not repay individual investment quickly. i.e. the outcome on the investment wouldn't appear in this years accounts.

 

Camerons "Big Society" isn't Adam Smiths "Great Society". It's not even Lyndon B Johnson's "Great Society". It is just a sop to the free marketeers, the Hayeks and Friedmans, to ease their conscience. If they ever had one. And a warning to us all that we're individually responsible for all these deaths and many of the rest of the country's ills.

 

 

 

*http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1361366

**This is the penultimate paragraph in Book IV of "Wealth of Nations"

 

This is absolutely spot on. A twisted, sly, soundbyte.

 

It reminds me of 'no one will be better off on benefits than in work'. For the many, working on shocking wages, they had clung to the hope that this meant a commitment to a living wage, or if not, higher in-work benefits so working families could afford to pay the bills AND put food on the table. However, it's clear for all to see now, what was meant was, 'we will squeeze the poorest until their pips squeak, in order to keep wages down, and hard-working families'.

 

You know on 'The Revolution Will Be Televised' they have politicians with 'Honest' subtitles? They should come as standard every time Cameron opens his mouth. He is a snake.

 

And, before anyone suggests it, of course, Blair should have them also.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Mr Bloom

[Bonzo77]

I believe that given the chance to make their fortune as Tony Blair has done,

the vast majority of Socialists would take the same opportunity once they climb down from their faux moralistic high ground.

 

If you're referring to the difference between Conservative and Labour, there is no difference.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2014 at 09:52 ----------

 

"Local government leaders say English councils face a 12.1% cut in their core central government funding next year."

 

The government don't tell them what to cut, they could just as easily stop wasting masses of money on crap, or they could cut their excessively high wages.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2014 at 08:50 ----------

 

 

It would be nice to see councils running their finances efficiently and giving the population good value for money, but money for councils is easy come easy go with no personal consequences for poor management.

 

Is that honestly why you think the government is slashing the council's funding, to cut out the waste???

[Mr Bloom]

I believe that given the chance to make their fortune as Tony Blair has done,

the vast majority of Socialists would take the same opportunity once they climb down from their faux moralistic high ground.

 

Do you believe two wrongs make a right?

[Oh Carol]

If you're referring to the difference between Conservative and Labour, there is no difference.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2014 at 09:52 ----------

 

 

Is that honestly why you think the government is slashing the council's funding, to cut out the waste???

I do not think there is a difference between Labour and Conservative on the point I raised.It is just that quite a number on here seem to believe that only those under the red flag have a franchise on morality!

[martok]

 

Is that honestly why you think the government is slashing the council's funding, to cut out the waste???

 

It doesn't matter why its been cut, councils need to spend money more effectively instead of wasting it and if they fail to provide essential services they are spending the money they have unwisely.

[skinz]

Here's just one example of the stupidity.

 

Councils waste millions on ineffective wind turbines that will take 190 years to repay.

 

Could you provide a link?

 

Edit.

 

Ok I found it. That article states that the wind turbines are defective, and only ineffective because of the defects. That's a production problem by the manufacture and surely not local council.

 

People buy cars that are recalled because of defects, do you think the buyer of that car is wasting their own finances?

Edited December 1, 2014 by skinz

[JFKvsNixon]

Could you provide a link?

 

You should know better than ask Smithy for a link! If we're not careful we'll use up the next ten pages arguing about non-existant links and obscure meanings of words.