Dr_Pangloss Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Most of the reduction in the deficit is down to the government cutting investment FWIW. Labour themselves proposed cuts but planned to do it over a longer time horizon, their plan compared to the Tories was probably the more sensible one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Lastly it sort of pisses on any tory bonfire about labour not wanting to make any cuts doesnt it? Labour planned to spread cuts over a longer period than the Coalition, 12 months extra to be exact. A revolutionary difference in economic policy, eh? lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 3. Last year thousands of disabled people marched through London to protest against the cuts to their disability living allowance and also to their services, this included the blind and deaf. These people struggle enough without having their care cut. so that would be a no then to your original point of "Loss of benefits for the blind " as an actual fact .. as I said to my knowledge nothing has been passed yet and won't be until April next year (if at all when it comes to the blind) What are percentage of VAT are we paying on everything else now already, 23%? 23 % !! do you even live in the UK ? it's 20 % ( same rate as labour where goign to put it up to had they won ... sorry I forgot Brown thinks he did win , so had they done the other type of win whereby you dont' come second ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Most of the reduction in the deficit is down to the government cutting investment FWIW. Labour themselves proposed cuts but planned to do it over a longer time horizon, their plan compared to the Tories was probably the more sensible one. says who Ed Balls ? Debt has to be paid back, defaulted on or inflated away. Britain has only two options: Plan A, or an even more ambitious variant of it. Plan Balls is no answer for our economic challenge. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 So today's report showed 113 labour MP's travelled first class at the tax payers expense (darling and balls being 2 of them , must be a chancellor thing :-) ) 48 Tory 19 lib dems Guess equality with the workers party and it's members is alive and kicking Me thinks Ed may not be trying to deflect with train gags at PMQ this week :-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 21, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 21, 2012 I don't think I could give less of shit what class any MP sits in. In fact I don't think I care whether they take the train or not. Utterly tedious tit for tat childish nonsense at a time when, frankly, there are more important things to be concerned with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Had it been Ed Balls or Danny Alexander asked to travel with the plebs their reaction might have been the same. The thing with it being Osbourne is it looks like the Tory 'all in it together' mask has slipped off again so soon after Mitchell. They need to either allow first-class travel or close the loopholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 at a time when, frankly, there are more important things to be concerned with. like hounding an MP out of office for a remark he denies using Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 21, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2012 like hounding an MP out of office for a remark he denies using This will be the MP that was so hounded office that he refused point blank to resign and had past the point of needing to, the issue was as good as dead in the water the previous wekend. He'd survived, then Osbourne pulls the I couldn't possibly sit in standard gaffe and suddenly, for no reason at all Mitchell resigns sending Westminster Journo's into an apoplectic panic as there was not one hint of it even half an hour before and they were rushing around London trying to get back to Parliament. Deflection? No never, not even sure Osbourne was even off the train at this point Hounded my arse, pushed and pushed to take the heat off Osbourne no less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Labour planned to spread cuts over a longer period than the Coalition, 12 months extra to be exact. A revolutionary difference in economic policy, eh? lol. that makes no sense. Labours plans were different, a tory accusation often used by supporters including on here is that labour would not have implemented any cuts. Labours plans were for cuts to be more phased, more thought out and flexible enough to cater for further changes in factors such as world events, you know a plan b etc. a lol indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 that makes no sense. Labours plans were different, a tory accusation often used by supporters including on here is that labour would not have implemented any cuts. Labours plans were for cuts to be more phased, more thought out and flexible enough to cater for further changes in factors such as world events, you know a plan b etc. a lol indeed I didn't say it made sense and I not speaking for anyone else either; Labour went into the election planning to make the same level of cuts as the Tories but taking an extra 12 months to do it. The difference is Osborne's tough talk was enough to convince the UK's creditors that HMG was serious about getting borrowing under control and the escalating euro crisis assisted him by focusing the attention of creditors on even bigger basket case economies instead of paying attention to the true state of the UK. The fact that the cuts made so far have been at best marginal hasn't stopped Balls et al from screaming their sound bites about "ideological cuts" etc, but to be fair the previous Labour plans were drawn up by Darling while he was Chancellor, not by Ed Balls who is possibly the only MP less suited to the role than Osborne.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Hounded my arse, pushed and pushed to take the heat off Osbourne no less have to disagree there the papers didn't let it go , the Police federation wouldn't let it go , Drat and Peter on VT wouldn't let it go , Ed devoted his main thrust at PMQ towards him , to say it was linked to Osborne as about as far from the truth as Brown saying he had fixed Boom and bust he was hounded out no two ways about it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 21, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2012 have to disagree there the papers didn't let it go , the Police federation wouldn't let it go , Drat and Peter on VT wouldn't let it go , Ed devoted his main thrust at PMQ towards him , to say it was linked to Osborne as about as far from the truth as Brown saying he had fixed Boom and bust he was hounded out no two ways about it ... Utterly wrong Tony, it was over, he'd survived. He was a lame duck who'd ruined any promotion for some considerable time but he was still in his job. It had fallen off the radar days previously. The previous weekend was the deadline if you like, he'd gone passed it without incident. He fell on his sword to protect Osbourne, no doubt about it in my mind. And if he was "Hounded Out" plenty of those hounds wear blue rosettes come election time Also there are plenty of Tory MP's who will tell you that the word pleb was common parlance for the former chief whip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 21, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 21, 2012 I'm with Tony on that one, it hadn't gone away at all to my mind. It was still a fixture on the news and Ed used it as his opening salvo at PMQs. He only went as the issue just wasn't being allowed to go away no matter how he hung on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Utterly wrong Tony, it was over, he'd survived. He was a lame duck who'd ruined any promotion for some considerable time but he was still in his job. It had fallen off the radar days previously. The previous weekend was the deadline if you like, he'd gone passed it without incident. He fell on his sword to protect Osbourne, no doubt about it in my mind. And if he was "Hounded Out" plenty of those hounds wear blue rosettes come election time Also there are plenty of Tory MP's who will tell you that the word pleb was common parlance for the former chief whip. I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man but really you're wider of the mark than a Benteke shot at goal Mitchell all but resigned on Thursday after it was apparent he had lost the backing of the 1922 Committee , that the letter had to wait until Cameron returned from Brussles was just a timing thing , nothing to do with Osborne , there isn't even a story with Osborne so nothing to protect ... The Guardian piece is probably on the money Mitchell was up against the Police Federation and powerful sections of the media. A government seeking to make sweeping reforms and wipe out a structural deficit will often face that deadly pincer movement of vested interest and the press. The Mitchell Affair has set a precedent and it has also sent a message to every trade union, professional association and special interest group in the land: when you have the minister on the ropes, keep at it. Stamina will be rewarded. All those reforms you hate can be thwarted or delayed by focused and prolonged attack on those who seek to enact them. A minister’s Cabinet colleagues will run for cover. And, if it suits them, which it very well might as unpopular measures threaten marginal seats, Tory MPs will join in the attack. Mitchell did not deserve his fate: all proportionality was lost in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Mitchell all but resigned on Thursday after it was apparent he had lost the backing of the 1922 Committee... Of those that spoke at the meeting, wasn't it reported to be about 2:1 in his favour regarding support? Is this the new party line we are to be given about his departure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Mitchell was hounded initially, clung on thanks to Dave, then pushed due to a revolt and subsequently the Tories are split. I don't think a man deserves to lose his job over a heat-of-the-moment remark, and I don't think he would've done if the Tories were united behind Dave. To paint this as a Labour/Media forced him out is quite a bit off the mark. There is something lurking in the Tory backbenches and they are looking to make their feelings known. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Of those that spoke at the meeting, wasn't it reported to be about 2:1 in his favour regarding support? Is this the new party line we are to be given about his departure? i've not seen the 2:1 support in his favour figure tbh ... one paper said he'd had 70 letters of support but the Weds night meeting suggest the majority of the 148 MPs elected to Westminster two years ago "signed his death warrant" by draining support from the Chief Whip I don't know if this is a plot to undermine Cameron ? or just payback on Mitchell who has enemies in the likes of IDS and May .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Shall we wind this back to the problem, the guy had painted himself into a corner, for all the half arsed apologies by and for him there were basics unresolved. He continued to dispute the police version of events but wouldn't give his own definitive account. The police and others were simply pointing out that either he or the police had made a massive and important error or had deliberately lied. When you've managed to make such a tactical arse of yourself that you end up having to admit to being a liar, or insist the police were liars, you've lost any ability to keep control in parliament. As for the papers hounding him with their agenda - that's what the papers are actually supposed to be for, keep shaking til the answer falls out, not keeping us up to date on x factor shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 22, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2012 So hold on Tony, who hounded him out again? Labour, the media or the Tories? Make your mind up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts