Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Gringo]

What are the odds of labour voting against a referendum, even though it was a 'manifesto' commitment of theirs?

[tonyh29]

What are the odds of labour voting against a referendum, even though it was a 'manifesto' commitment of theirs?

Labour don't do Hypocrisy do they :winkold:

[drat01]

What are the odds of labour voting against a referendum, even though it was a 'manifesto' commitment of theirs?

Labour don't do Hypocrisy do they :winkold:

Tony your lot have set the agenda tough - manifesto means nothing whatsoever it seems. No VAT rises etc etc etc

I see that Labour want a free vote, can't see much wrong with that. But by the time this all happens anyway the LibDem's as was will exist no more, Smithers Clegg and his power hungry poodles will be part of the Tory party (they can drop the ConDem bit of the name) and we can start worrying about those Johnny Forigners types.

[drat01]

Oh dear - politician knows more about policing than ahem a policeman?

A senior minister has criticised one of the Metropolitan Police's top officers over reports that he said cuts would raise the risk of a terrorist attack.

Assistant Commissioner John Yates warned that spending cuts could not be delivered without an increased risk of an attack, according to the reports.

The Times said Mr Yates described the Treasury cuts as "eye-watering".

But Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said public servants "should not alarm the public".

Mr Yates, who is Britain's most senior anti-terrorist officer, was reported to have made the comments at a private meeting during the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) annual conference in Manchester on Thursday.

According to the reports, he said cutting 25% from the police budget risked weakening defences against al-Qaeda and claimed counter-terrorism officers would need to make savings in the region of £150m.

Continue reading the main story

There is a special responsibility on all public servants to be really careful what we say and what we do

Francis Maude

Cabinet Office minister

Mr Yates was said to have told the meeting the Metropolitan Police (Met) would see £87m wiped from its anti-terror budget, while units across the country would lose £62m.

But Mr Maude said: "I'd like to avoid public servants doing this kind of shroud waving in public.

"There is a special responsibility on all public servants to be really careful what we say and what we do.

"It's going to be pretty important for people who are managing big public services like police forces to focus on cutting out unnecessary costs, driving down costs, being as efficient as they possibly can before they even begin to contemplate talking about alarming the public in this kind of way."

An Acpo spokesman said police forces had to face cuts in the same way as other areas of public spending.

"The home secretary has made clear that alongside other areas of public spending, policing must deliver its share of savings to meet the fiscal deficit," he said.

"No area of policing is immune."

So we have some classic comments from Tory Francis Maude

But Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said public servants "should not alarm the public".

"There is a special responsibility on all public servants to be really careful what we say and what we do.

So a leading police office is now not able to say anything? Hmmm I wonder if this is consistent with the view of the same Tory party only a few months back?

Front line services? no they wont be hit ............ oh they will but it does not matter as we only promised it to get votes

[snowychap]

What are the odds of labour voting against a referendum, even though it was a 'manifesto' commitment of theirs?

If they get the word that there might be a few Tory backbenchers putting their heads above the parapet then there's a good chance.

[TrentVilla]

So we have some classic comments from Tory Francis Maude

But Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said public servants "should not alarm the public".

"There is a special responsibility on all public servants to be really careful what we say and what we do.

So a leading police office is now not able to say anything? Hmmm I wonder if this is consistent with the view of the same Tory party only a few months back?

Front line services? no they wont be hit ............ oh they will but it does not matter as we only promised it to get votes

Clearly what they meant was front line services won't be hit, well they will, only you won't know because we will tell those involved not to tell you.

[Gringo]

So we have some classic comments from Tory Francis Maude

But Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said public servants "should not alarm the public".

I agree with maude. And Public servants should also not be wheeled out to alarm the public in order that the govt can secure silly legislation such as 90 days and ID cards. If the people wanted the police to decide on policy, the people should vote them into office.

[tonyh29]

And Public servants should also not be wheeled out to alarm the public in order that the govt can secure silly legislation such as 90 days and ID cards. If the people wanted the police to decide on policy, the people should vote them into office.

This

The police should stick to shooting innocent Brazilians and leave politics to the politicians

[drat01]

So we have some classic comments from Tory Francis Maude

But Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said public servants "should not alarm the public".

I agree with maude. And Public servants should also not be wheeled out to alarm the public in order that the govt can secure silly legislation such as 90 days and ID cards. If the people wanted the police to decide on policy, the people should vote them into office.

He was not "wheeled out" as you make out - his quote was at a Police conference - if he cannot comment there, where can he comment?

He was reported to have made the comments at a private meeting during the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) annual conference in Manchester on Thursday.

So you approve of the Boris scheme of voting for the police now? Hmmm interesting

[Gringo]

So we have some classic comments from Tory Francis Maude

But Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said public servants "should not alarm the public".

I agree with maude. And Public servants should also not be wheeled out to alarm the public in order that the govt can secure silly legislation such as 90 days and ID cards. If the people wanted the police to decide on policy, the people should vote them into office.

He was not "wheeled out" as you make out - his quote was at a Police conference - if he cannot comment there, where can he comment?

He was reported to have made the comments at a private meeting during the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) annual conference in Manchester on Thursday.

My post did not refer to Yates - he wasn't wheeled out to "alarm the public in order that the govt can secure silly legislation such as 90 days and ID cards" - so it would be extremely hard to relate my post to his actions.

So you approve of the Boris scheme of voting for the police now? Hmmm interesting

No I don't and nowhere have I said so. I said elected politicians should do politicians work, and coppers should do plods work.

How you can interpret my post to reach your two conclusions is beyond me.

[drat01]

Maybe your posts infer that and if we played les games and said what you really meant all would be well?

So Gringo - was this chappy wrong to have made his statement? was the point that he made valid? should the police have a say? should we have elected leaders like Boris has suggested?

Lots of points but all fairly straight forward with no hidden meanings or misunderstandings I hope

[snowychap]

So it's vouchers for food parcels as a possible suggestion, now?

How long before a return to the Poor Laws gets suggested?

[shambles]

About time someone realised starvation is the best way to shake people up a bit. Let's bring back workhouses for the destitute too.

D-Cam rolling back the years. :adore:

[snowychap]

Angling for a job with IDS's 'think' tank? :winkold:

[avfc89]

Nice modern and progressive ideas by Cameron and his team.

[drat01]

Absolutely disgraceful from the ConDem's

Mr Clegg also announced that 66% - rather than the previously planned 55% - of MPs would be needed to force a dissolution of Parliament.

This is a disgusting statement of contempt for the UK electorate. The lust for power that the ConDem's are showing - and especially considering that they are an unelected Gvmt - is disgraceful. I remember a certain accusation of Zimbabwean style politics that some always chose to throw out during Labours term in office, its noticeable that even though the ConDem's are mimicking Mugabe style Gvmt there is little or no comment or condemnation.

Add to that the cancelling of the school project todays and you can see what your LibDem vote for Smithers did in allowing Cameron and Osborne to even more right wing than Thatcher. Every day another lurch further to the right

[Awol]

Every day another lurch further to the right

Good, innit

[drat01]

I'm sure the millions added to the unemployment lines will agree with you Jon - not

As will those who now have seen more civil liberties taken away from them - not.

As will those who have seen fair and reasonable benefits taken away from them - not.

After all said and done Mugabe did say he supported Cameron

[bickster]

Absolutely disgraceful from the ConDem's

Mr Clegg also announced that 66% - rather than the previously planned 55% - of MPs would be needed to force a dissolution of Parliament.

This is a disgusting statement of contempt for the UK electorate. The lust for power that the ConDem's are showing - and especially considering that they are an unelected Gvmt - is disgraceful. I remember a certain accusation of Zimbabwean style politics that some always chose to throw out during Labours term in office, its noticeable that even though the ConDem's are mimicking Mugabe style Gvmt there is little or no comment or condemnation.

That is disgusting, but they aren't a unelected government. I honestly think for once that is a level even Labour wouldn't have stooped to

[tonyh29]

Did someone from the labour side try and score points based on civil liberties :shock:

I'm off to quote your post in the post of the year thread , funniest one I've heard in yonks