Where exactly did cash go?

First published in Letters

ANOTHER day and another letter from all the misguided lefties in Wales blaming the savage Tory cuts for cuts in public services.

In 1999, council tax for a band D property in Newport was £389. Taking account of inflation, this would now stand at £598, but people in Newport find themselves with bills of £1,096 with no noticeable improvement in our local services.

Under old Labour, the cry went out to local councils to spend as much as you want and just jack up the council tax. Can you name any other business where you could do such a thing? Most councils made hay. You name it, they were recruiting it – equality officers, directors, chief executives, deputy chief executives – many on eye-watering salaries way out of line with the salaries paid in for the area.

Luckily for the residents in England, Mr Cameron has limited council tax rises to 1.5 per cent. In Wales, of course, the money that was given by Westminster to freeze council tax was pocketed by the WAG and in usual Labour fashion, taxes were increased.

I did write to them asking what they had done with this quite considerable sum. The response I got was that it was earmarked for other areas, but they refused to expand on this – probably frittered away on empire building or propping up a dead language or another ofmany of the crackpot schemes that Uncle Carwyn and the dross at the Bay cook up.

C Bradley, Caerleon Road, Newport

Comments (71)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:06pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Stevenboy says...

Good letter. Spot on.
Good letter. Spot on. Stevenboy
  • Score: 3

2:17pm Fri 15 Aug 14

landyman3030 says...

Completely agree. Bang on.
Completely agree. Bang on. landyman3030
  • Score: 5

3:01pm Fri 15 Aug 14

pwlldu says...

Labour's very good at playing the blame game.
Labour's very good at playing the blame game. pwlldu
  • Score: 8

4:26pm Fri 15 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

Ah! well you see, you can blame all you like, but unless I am mistaken it was the voters in Wales to blame for the mess in the Bay of Pigs.

I agree that the Assembly ( I refuse to call it a 'government as it was not needed in the first place, just another tier of spendthrifts added to your council tax) can be called dross. very apt.
But then why stop at 1999, what went on in Wales before that was fully on the hands of the Tories who sanctioned a second referendum, not forgetting their initiating attempt at making a road map for privatising the NHS by the imposition of a massive new management regime, somewhere for their redundant military for one aspect.

Constant interference in all aspects of our communal and social life being always the programme whenever the Tory lot get in.

You need to take off those blue tinted glasses, and take a look at why rates have risen so dramatically. It's maybe down to the vast increase in management in your town hall, but it was NOT the Labour party, that set that unwanted and unnecessary ball rolling, at least not the mob the voters elected in in 1997, the die was cast in the twenty years before Nu Labour took control.

I can assure you,there are many like myself who regret the birth of what passes for the Labour party today.

So before you carry on with your snide. 'lefty' commentary keep in mind if it was not for the 'left' you so glibly criticise, you would have little of the social benefits you enjoy today. Of course you may be one of the exploiting class who infect our society, in which case you wouldn't support social benefits now would you.
Ah! well you see, you can blame all you like, but unless I am mistaken it was the voters in Wales to blame for the mess in the Bay of Pigs. I agree that the Assembly ( I refuse to call it a 'government as it was not needed in the first place, just another tier of spendthrifts added to your council tax) can be called dross. very apt. But then why stop at 1999, what went on in Wales before that was fully on the hands of the Tories who sanctioned a second referendum, not forgetting their initiating attempt at making a road map for privatising the NHS by the imposition of a massive new management regime, somewhere for their redundant military for one aspect. Constant interference in all aspects of our communal and social life being always the programme whenever the Tory lot get in. You need to take off those blue tinted glasses, and take a look at why rates have risen so dramatically. It's maybe down to the vast increase in management in your town hall, but it was NOT the Labour party, that set that unwanted and unnecessary ball rolling, at least not the mob the voters elected in in 1997, the die was cast in the twenty years before Nu Labour took control. I can assure you,there are many like myself who regret the birth of what passes for the Labour party today. So before you carry on with your snide. 'lefty' commentary keep in mind if it was not for the 'left' you so glibly criticise, you would have little of the social benefits you enjoy today. Of course you may be one of the exploiting class who infect our society, in which case you wouldn't support social benefits now would you. varteg1
  • Score: 1

4:28pm Fri 15 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

pwlldu wrote:
Labour's very good at playing the blame game.
With very good cause.
[quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Labour's very good at playing the blame game.[/p][/quote]With very good cause. varteg1
  • Score: 3

4:44pm Fri 15 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

Just looked at NBC tax figures for the years 1999 2010 and today.

1999 Labour charged (rounding up by 2£ for convenience ) £600
2010 Labour charged £770 ( again to the nearest 10 quid)

Rise over 11 years ....... £170

Today, after only FOUR years of the Tory government, you say it is £1100 ( 2 quid allowed)

a rise of £430, or if you like... £1q10 (approx) per year,... against £16
(approx) under the Nu labour government.

Next time you send in a letter maybe you will write ALL the data, not just the bits that suit your 'righty' agenda.
Just looked at NBC tax figures for the years 1999 2010 and today. 1999 Labour charged (rounding up by 2£ for convenience ) £600 2010 Labour charged £770 ( again to the nearest 10 quid) Rise over 11 years ....... £170 Today, after only FOUR years of the Tory government, you say it is £1100 ( 2 quid allowed) a rise of £430, or if you like... £1q10 (approx) per year,... against £16 (approx) under the Nu labour government. Next time you send in a letter maybe you will write ALL the data, not just the bits that suit your 'righty' agenda. varteg1
  • Score: -8

4:46pm Fri 15 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

pwlldu wrote:
Labour's very good at playing the blame game.
And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation.
[quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Labour's very good at playing the blame game.[/p][/quote]And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation. varteg1
  • Score: 1

5:49pm Fri 15 Aug 14

scraptheWAG says...

varteg1 wrote:
Just looked at NBC tax figures for the years 1999 2010 and today.

1999 Labour charged (rounding up by 2£ for convenience ) £600
2010 Labour charged £770 ( again to the nearest 10 quid)

Rise over 11 years ....... £170

Today, after only FOUR years of the Tory government, you say it is £1100 ( 2 quid allowed)

a rise of £430, or if you like... £1q10 (approx) per year,... against £16
(approx) under the Nu labour government.

Next time you send in a letter maybe you will write ALL the data, not just the bits that suit your 'righty' agenda.
You seem very confused look on the councils web site the bill for 1999 was £389 in 2010/11 it was £953. (band D)

In england they were capped at 1.5% in newport we had three times that ,

Where do you get your confused figures from ?????????
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Just looked at NBC tax figures for the years 1999 2010 and today. 1999 Labour charged (rounding up by 2£ for convenience ) £600 2010 Labour charged £770 ( again to the nearest 10 quid) Rise over 11 years ....... £170 Today, after only FOUR years of the Tory government, you say it is £1100 ( 2 quid allowed) a rise of £430, or if you like... £1q10 (approx) per year,... against £16 (approx) under the Nu labour government. Next time you send in a letter maybe you will write ALL the data, not just the bits that suit your 'righty' agenda.[/p][/quote]You seem very confused look on the councils web site the bill for 1999 was £389 in 2010/11 it was £953. (band D) In england they were capped at 1.5% in newport we had three times that , Where do you get your confused figures from ????????? scraptheWAG
  • Score: -1

5:51pm Fri 15 Aug 14

scraptheWAG says...

varteg1 wrote:
pwlldu wrote:
Labour's very good at playing the blame game.
And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation.
and labour supporters cannot read and are not very good at maths.
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Labour's very good at playing the blame game.[/p][/quote]And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation.[/p][/quote]and labour supporters cannot read and are not very good at maths. scraptheWAG
  • Score: -4

8:30pm Fri 15 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Just looked at NBC tax figures for the years 1999 2010 and today.

1999 Labour charged (rounding up by 2£ for convenience ) £600
2010 Labour charged £770 ( again to the nearest 10 quid)

Rise over 11 years ....... £170

Today, after only FOUR years of the Tory government, you say it is £1100 ( 2 quid allowed)

a rise of £430, or if you like... £1q10 (approx) per year,... against £16
(approx) under the Nu labour government.

Next time you send in a letter maybe you will write ALL the data, not just the bits that suit your 'righty' agenda.
You seem very confused look on the councils web site the bill for 1999 was £389 in 2010/11 it was £953. (band D)

In england they were capped at 1.5% in newport we had three times that ,

Where do you get your confused figures from ?????????
I got my 'confused' figures direct from Newport Boro Council web site.


How long did it take you to compose your work of fiction?
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Just looked at NBC tax figures for the years 1999 2010 and today. 1999 Labour charged (rounding up by 2£ for convenience ) £600 2010 Labour charged £770 ( again to the nearest 10 quid) Rise over 11 years ....... £170 Today, after only FOUR years of the Tory government, you say it is £1100 ( 2 quid allowed) a rise of £430, or if you like... £1q10 (approx) per year,... against £16 (approx) under the Nu labour government. Next time you send in a letter maybe you will write ALL the data, not just the bits that suit your 'righty' agenda.[/p][/quote]You seem very confused look on the councils web site the bill for 1999 was £389 in 2010/11 it was £953. (band D) In england they were capped at 1.5% in newport we had three times that , Where do you get your confused figures from ?????????[/p][/quote]I got my 'confused' figures direct from Newport Boro Council web site. How long did it take you to compose your work of fiction? varteg1
  • Score: 2

8:34pm Fri 15 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
pwlldu wrote:
Labour's very good at playing the blame game.
And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation.
and labour supporters cannot read and are not very good at maths.
My math maybe suspect, but what makes you think I employed dead accurate math in my message? I was generalising,
BTW, I have sufficient accuracy in the subject to realise the Assembly has been a fiscal disaster for Wales.

And it ain't over yet.

And, should the 'righties' ever get control it will get even far worse.
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Labour's very good at playing the blame game.[/p][/quote]And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation.[/p][/quote]and labour supporters cannot read and are not very good at maths.[/p][/quote]My math maybe suspect, but what makes you think I employed dead accurate math in my message? I was generalising, BTW, I have sufficient accuracy in the subject to realise the Assembly has been a fiscal disaster for Wales. And it ain't over yet. And, should the 'righties' ever get control it will get even far worse. varteg1
  • Score: -3

9:02pm Fri 15 Aug 14

scraptheWAG says...

varteg1 wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Just looked at NBC tax figures for the years 1999 2010 and today.

1999 Labour charged (rounding up by 2£ for convenience ) £600
2010 Labour charged £770 ( again to the nearest 10 quid)

Rise over 11 years ....... £170

Today, after only FOUR years of the Tory government, you say it is £1100 ( 2 quid allowed)

a rise of £430, or if you like... £1q10 (approx) per year,... against £16
(approx) under the Nu labour government.

Next time you send in a letter maybe you will write ALL the data, not just the bits that suit your 'righty' agenda.
You seem very confused look on the councils web site the bill for 1999 was £389 in 2010/11 it was £953. (band D)

In england they were capped at 1.5% in newport we had three times that ,

Where do you get your confused figures from ?????????
I got my 'confused' figures direct from Newport Boro Council web site.


How long did it take you to compose your work of fiction?
I got mine from council's own web site
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Just looked at NBC tax figures for the years 1999 2010 and today. 1999 Labour charged (rounding up by 2£ for convenience ) £600 2010 Labour charged £770 ( again to the nearest 10 quid) Rise over 11 years ....... £170 Today, after only FOUR years of the Tory government, you say it is £1100 ( 2 quid allowed) a rise of £430, or if you like... £1q10 (approx) per year,... against £16 (approx) under the Nu labour government. Next time you send in a letter maybe you will write ALL the data, not just the bits that suit your 'righty' agenda.[/p][/quote]You seem very confused look on the councils web site the bill for 1999 was £389 in 2010/11 it was £953. (band D) In england they were capped at 1.5% in newport we had three times that , Where do you get your confused figures from ?????????[/p][/quote]I got my 'confused' figures direct from Newport Boro Council web site. How long did it take you to compose your work of fiction?[/p][/quote]I got mine from council's own web site scraptheWAG
  • Score: -5

9:07pm Fri 15 Aug 14

scraptheWAG says...

varteg1 wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Just looked at NBC tax figures for the years 1999 2010 and today.

1999 Labour charged (rounding up by 2£ for convenience ) £600
2010 Labour charged £770 ( again to the nearest 10 quid)

Rise over 11 years ....... £170

Today, after only FOUR years of the Tory government, you say it is £1100 ( 2 quid allowed)

a rise of £430, or if you like... £1q10 (approx) per year,... against £16
(approx) under the Nu labour government.

Next time you send in a letter maybe you will write ALL the data, not just the bits that suit your 'righty' agenda.
You seem very confused look on the councils web site the bill for 1999 was £389 in 2010/11 it was £953. (band D)

In england they were capped at 1.5% in newport we had three times that ,

Where do you get your confused figures from ?????????
I got my 'confused' figures direct from Newport Boro Council web site.


How long did it take you to compose your work of fiction?
well readers can look on the counciles own web site and see what i say is correct
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Just looked at NBC tax figures for the years 1999 2010 and today. 1999 Labour charged (rounding up by 2£ for convenience ) £600 2010 Labour charged £770 ( again to the nearest 10 quid) Rise over 11 years ....... £170 Today, after only FOUR years of the Tory government, you say it is £1100 ( 2 quid allowed) a rise of £430, or if you like... £1q10 (approx) per year,... against £16 (approx) under the Nu labour government. Next time you send in a letter maybe you will write ALL the data, not just the bits that suit your 'righty' agenda.[/p][/quote]You seem very confused look on the councils web site the bill for 1999 was £389 in 2010/11 it was £953. (band D) In england they were capped at 1.5% in newport we had three times that , Where do you get your confused figures from ?????????[/p][/quote]I got my 'confused' figures direct from Newport Boro Council web site. How long did it take you to compose your work of fiction?[/p][/quote]well readers can look on the counciles own web site and see what i say is correct scraptheWAG
  • Score: -2

2:38pm Sat 16 Aug 14

pwlldu says...

Both Tories and Labour has mis governed Wales, reason they both worried about the south east of england and london. Wrong policies for wales.
Both Tories and Labour has mis governed Wales, reason they both worried about the south east of england and london. Wrong policies for wales. pwlldu
  • Score: 9

5:07pm Sat 16 Aug 14

Stevenboy says...

pwlldu wrote:
Both Tories and Labour has mis governed Wales, reason they both worried about the south east of england and london. Wrong policies for wales.
Ah yes. Plaid want more immigration into Wales. That's a good policy is it?
[quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Both Tories and Labour has mis governed Wales, reason they both worried about the south east of england and london. Wrong policies for wales.[/p][/quote]Ah yes. Plaid want more immigration into Wales. That's a good policy is it? Stevenboy
  • Score: -3

8:22am Mon 18 Aug 14

Mervyn James says...

varteg1 wrote:
pwlldu wrote:
Labour's very good at playing the blame game.
With very good cause.
As averse to Tories who blame everyone but themselves for bank fraud, Ministers pocketing tax payers cash via illegal fiddles, London arrogance, Labour hatred, class warfare in education, free school fiascos, 40 kids to 1 class, oppression and abuse of the old, of the sick and disabled etc, putting migrants first, own people last, sometimes you need to lay blame where it originates.
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Labour's very good at playing the blame game.[/p][/quote]With very good cause.[/p][/quote]As averse to Tories who blame everyone but themselves for bank fraud, Ministers pocketing tax payers cash via illegal fiddles, London arrogance, Labour hatred, class warfare in education, free school fiascos, 40 kids to 1 class, oppression and abuse of the old, of the sick and disabled etc, putting migrants first, own people last, sometimes you need to lay blame where it originates. Mervyn James
  • Score: -6

9:19am Mon 18 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

@varteg1, @scraptheWAG

How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?
@varteg1, @scraptheWAG How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them? mkaibear1
  • Score: 7

10:37am Mon 18 Aug 14

Mr Miffed says...

Mervyn James wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
pwlldu wrote:
Labour's very good at playing the blame game.
With very good cause.
As averse to Tories who blame everyone but themselves for bank fraud, Ministers pocketing tax payers cash via illegal fiddles, London arrogance, Labour hatred, class warfare in education, free school fiascos, 40 kids to 1 class, oppression and abuse of the old, of the sick and disabled etc, putting migrants first, own people last, sometimes you need to lay blame where it originates.
Are you for real? Tories 'putting immigrants first'? Would you care to tell us all who presided over the biggest influx of migrants in British history? I think you'll find the Tories had been out of power for a while when it took place so that should give you a start. If you're going to have one of you class warfare style Citizen Smith style 70s rants at least stick to the facts.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Labour's very good at playing the blame game.[/p][/quote]With very good cause.[/p][/quote]As averse to Tories who blame everyone but themselves for bank fraud, Ministers pocketing tax payers cash via illegal fiddles, London arrogance, Labour hatred, class warfare in education, free school fiascos, 40 kids to 1 class, oppression and abuse of the old, of the sick and disabled etc, putting migrants first, own people last, sometimes you need to lay blame where it originates.[/p][/quote]Are you for real? Tories 'putting immigrants first'? Would you care to tell us all who presided over the biggest influx of migrants in British history? I think you'll find the Tories had been out of power for a while when it took place so that should give you a start. If you're going to have one of you class warfare style Citizen Smith style 70s rants at least stick to the facts. Mr Miffed
  • Score: 6

8:09pm Mon 18 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
@varteg1, @scraptheWAG

How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?
I am retracting my calculations as I discovered the figures I read off were not comparable with another set on another page. Which in fact were confirmed by a call to the Council

In fact I found that over 13 years of Newport figures 1996/2010 the annual tax rose on average (to nearest Pound),,,,,,£40

From 2010 to present,( over 4 years, to nearest Pound....£34 PA

Apologies for previous incorrect figures.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: @varteg1, @scraptheWAG How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?[/p][/quote]I am retracting my calculations as I discovered the figures I read off were not comparable with another set on another page. Which in fact were confirmed by a call to the Council In fact I found that over 13 years of Newport figures 1996/2010 the annual tax rose on average (to nearest Pound),,,,,,£40 From 2010 to present,( over 4 years, to nearest Pound....£34 PA Apologies for previous incorrect figures. varteg1
  • Score: 3

8:12pm Mon 18 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
@varteg1, @scraptheWAG

How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?
I am deliberately ignoring any further argument regarding the political policies responsible for these figures.

However I do not alter my stance over the worthlessness of the Assembly.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: @varteg1, @scraptheWAG How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?[/p][/quote]I am deliberately ignoring any further argument regarding the political policies responsible for these figures. However I do not alter my stance over the worthlessness of the Assembly. varteg1
  • Score: 4

8:13pm Mon 18 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

varteg1 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
@varteg1, @scraptheWAG

How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?
I am retracting my calculations as I discovered the figures I read off were not comparable with another set on another page. Which in fact were confirmed by a call to the Council

In fact I found that over 13 years of Newport figures 1996/2010 the annual tax rose on average (to nearest Pound),,,,,,£40

From 2010 to present,( over 4 years, to nearest Pound....£34 PA

Apologies for previous incorrect figures.
Again, please provide links. Quoting figures is all very well but without letting us know where you got them you may as well be pulling them out of your bottom.

If you've had these figures confirmed by Newport there should be no issue in telling us on what page you found them.
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: @varteg1, @scraptheWAG How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?[/p][/quote]I am retracting my calculations as I discovered the figures I read off were not comparable with another set on another page. Which in fact were confirmed by a call to the Council In fact I found that over 13 years of Newport figures 1996/2010 the annual tax rose on average (to nearest Pound),,,,,,£40 From 2010 to present,( over 4 years, to nearest Pound....£34 PA Apologies for previous incorrect figures.[/p][/quote]Again, please provide links. Quoting figures is all very well but without letting us know where you got them you may as well be pulling them out of your bottom. If you've had these figures confirmed by Newport there should be no issue in telling us on what page you found them. mkaibear1
  • Score: -3

8:15pm Mon 18 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

varteg1 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
@varteg1, @scraptheWAG

How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?
I am deliberately ignoring any further argument regarding the political policies responsible for these figures.

However I do not alter my stance over the worthlessness of the Assembly.
This isn't a political query, it's just a request for information. Where did you get your figures from? I can't understand why you're so reticent to provide them (although, to be fair, at least you're bothering to post unlike scrapthewag)
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: @varteg1, @scraptheWAG How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?[/p][/quote]I am deliberately ignoring any further argument regarding the political policies responsible for these figures. However I do not alter my stance over the worthlessness of the Assembly.[/p][/quote]This isn't a political query, it's just a request for information. Where did you get your figures from? I can't understand why you're so reticent to provide them (although, to be fair, at least you're bothering to post unlike scrapthewag) mkaibear1
  • Score: 1

8:57pm Mon 18 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
@varteg1, @scraptheWAG

How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?
I am deliberately ignoring any further argument regarding the political policies responsible for these figures.

However I do not alter my stance over the worthlessness of the Assembly.
This isn't a political query, it's just a request for information. Where did you get your figures from? I can't understand why you're so reticent to provide them (although, to be fair, at least you're bothering to post unlike scrapthewag)
Go to Newport web site, look for council tax and refer to 'virtual bill'

It lists every year from 1996, click on the year box to get the year, then below that click on generate.

I used the band d option without referring to area.. This I was told gives the average across the boro'.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: @varteg1, @scraptheWAG How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?[/p][/quote]I am deliberately ignoring any further argument regarding the political policies responsible for these figures. However I do not alter my stance over the worthlessness of the Assembly.[/p][/quote]This isn't a political query, it's just a request for information. Where did you get your figures from? I can't understand why you're so reticent to provide them (although, to be fair, at least you're bothering to post unlike scrapthewag)[/p][/quote]Go to Newport web site, look for council tax and refer to 'virtual bill' It lists every year from 1996, click on the year box to get the year, then below that click on generate. I used the band d option without referring to area.. This I was told gives the average across the boro'. varteg1
  • Score: 3

9:56pm Mon 18 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

varteg1 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
@varteg1, @scraptheWAG

How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?
I am deliberately ignoring any further argument regarding the political policies responsible for these figures.

However I do not alter my stance over the worthlessness of the Assembly.
This isn't a political query, it's just a request for information. Where did you get your figures from? I can't understand why you're so reticent to provide them (although, to be fair, at least you're bothering to post unlike scrapthewag)
Go to Newport web site, look for council tax and refer to 'virtual bill'

It lists every year from 1996, click on the year box to get the year, then below that click on generate.

I used the band d option without referring to area.. This I was told gives the average across the boro'.
Right, cool, thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for :)
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: @varteg1, @scraptheWAG How about sharing the links where you found the figures rather than just shouting at each other about them?[/p][/quote]I am deliberately ignoring any further argument regarding the political policies responsible for these figures. However I do not alter my stance over the worthlessness of the Assembly.[/p][/quote]This isn't a political query, it's just a request for information. Where did you get your figures from? I can't understand why you're so reticent to provide them (although, to be fair, at least you're bothering to post unlike scrapthewag)[/p][/quote]Go to Newport web site, look for council tax and refer to 'virtual bill' It lists every year from 1996, click on the year box to get the year, then below that click on generate. I used the band d option without referring to area.. This I was told gives the average across the boro'.[/p][/quote]Right, cool, thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for :) mkaibear1
  • Score: 1

10:33am Tue 19 Aug 14

BassalegCountyFan says...

Am tempted to remind the letter writer that there probably wouldn't be any public services if it wasn't for us 'misguided lefties', but that's besides the point.

Remind me which government sold our Royal Mail off on the cheap (costing the taxpayer billions in the process), has slashed the number of police, firemen, nurses, GP's & social workers and trebled the use of Food Bank users? Perhaps the millions of people who are unhappy with the Con-Dem government are on to something...

History has shown us that you can never trust the tories.
Am tempted to remind the letter writer that there probably wouldn't be any public services if it wasn't for us 'misguided lefties', but that's besides the point. Remind me which government sold our Royal Mail off on the cheap (costing the taxpayer billions in the process), has slashed the number of police, firemen, nurses, GP's & social workers and trebled the use of Food Bank users? Perhaps the millions of people who are unhappy with the Con-Dem government are on to something... History has shown us that you can never trust the tories. BassalegCountyFan
  • Score: 9

10:48am Tue 19 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Am tempted to remind the letter writer that there probably wouldn't be any public services if it wasn't for us 'misguided lefties', but that's besides the point.

Remind me which government sold our Royal Mail off on the cheap (costing the taxpayer billions in the process), has slashed the number of police, firemen, nurses, GP's & social workers and trebled the use of Food Bank users? Perhaps the millions of people who are unhappy with the Con-Dem government are on to something...

History has shown us that you can never trust the tories.
>History has told us

...that you can't trust the Tories with the public sector, or Labour with the economy...


It's a little specious complaining that the Tories reduce public services as if it were a surprise. It's one of their stated aims in government, to reduce the size of the public service. The general public isn't so ignorant as to be unaware of that.
[quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: Am tempted to remind the letter writer that there probably wouldn't be any public services if it wasn't for us 'misguided lefties', but that's besides the point. Remind me which government sold our Royal Mail off on the cheap (costing the taxpayer billions in the process), has slashed the number of police, firemen, nurses, GP's & social workers and trebled the use of Food Bank users? Perhaps the millions of people who are unhappy with the Con-Dem government are on to something... History has shown us that you can never trust the tories.[/p][/quote]>History has told us ...that you can't trust the Tories with the public sector, or Labour with the economy... It's a little specious complaining that the Tories reduce public services as if it were a surprise. It's one of their stated aims in government, to reduce the size of the public service. The general public isn't so ignorant as to be unaware of that. mkaibear1
  • Score: -5

12:59pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Ultimate Worrier says...

All this arguing between Labour and Tories all the time is pointless. Tory for the welathy, Labour for the working class. Simple as that. Surely it's about time the two parties were forced to work together for the benefit of EVERYONE in this country, and not just the section of society that they represent. Now that would be a true democracy.
All this arguing between Labour and Tories all the time is pointless. Tory for the welathy, Labour for the working class. Simple as that. Surely it's about time the two parties were forced to work together for the benefit of EVERYONE in this country, and not just the section of society that they represent. Now that would be a true democracy. Ultimate Worrier
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

Mervyn James wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
pwlldu wrote:
Labour's very good at playing the blame game.
With very good cause.
As averse to Tories who blame everyone but themselves for bank fraud, Ministers pocketing tax payers cash via illegal fiddles, London arrogance, Labour hatred, class warfare in education, free school fiascos, 40 kids to 1 class, oppression and abuse of the old, of the sick and disabled etc, putting migrants first, own people last, sometimes you need to lay blame where it originates.
And of course Tony B Liar and Gordon Brown covered themselves in glory didn't they?
They were in power when this so called 'bank fraud' came about.
They got us into this economic mess that we are still in.
The reason why the Tories have been so bad this time is because of the restraints put on them by the left of left Limp Dems.
As far as I am concerned, they haven't gone far enough in tackling the feckless and work shy of which Wales has more than its fair share of, unfortunately.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Labour's very good at playing the blame game.[/p][/quote]With very good cause.[/p][/quote]As averse to Tories who blame everyone but themselves for bank fraud, Ministers pocketing tax payers cash via illegal fiddles, London arrogance, Labour hatred, class warfare in education, free school fiascos, 40 kids to 1 class, oppression and abuse of the old, of the sick and disabled etc, putting migrants first, own people last, sometimes you need to lay blame where it originates.[/p][/quote]And of course Tony B Liar and Gordon Brown covered themselves in glory didn't they? They were in power when this so called 'bank fraud' came about. They got us into this economic mess that we are still in. The reason why the Tories have been so bad this time is because of the restraints put on them by the left of left Limp Dems. As far as I am concerned, they haven't gone far enough in tackling the feckless and work shy of which Wales has more than its fair share of, unfortunately. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: -6

2:53pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Am tempted to remind the letter writer that there probably wouldn't be any public services if it wasn't for us 'misguided lefties', but that's besides the point.

Remind me which government sold our Royal Mail off on the cheap (costing the taxpayer billions in the process), has slashed the number of police, firemen, nurses, GP's & social workers and trebled the use of Food Bank users? Perhaps the millions of people who are unhappy with the Con-Dem government are on to something...

History has shown us that you can never trust the tories.
History has told us that Labour will tax and spend and bankrupt the Country.
[quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: Am tempted to remind the letter writer that there probably wouldn't be any public services if it wasn't for us 'misguided lefties', but that's besides the point. Remind me which government sold our Royal Mail off on the cheap (costing the taxpayer billions in the process), has slashed the number of police, firemen, nurses, GP's & social workers and trebled the use of Food Bank users? Perhaps the millions of people who are unhappy with the Con-Dem government are on to something... History has shown us that you can never trust the tories.[/p][/quote]History has told us that Labour will tax and spend and bankrupt the Country. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: -5

4:51pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Mr Miffed says...

Ultimate Worrier wrote:
All this arguing between Labour and Tories all the time is pointless. Tory for the welathy, Labour for the working class. Simple as that. Surely it's about time the two parties were forced to work together for the benefit of EVERYONE in this country, and not just the section of society that they represent. Now that would be a true democracy.
What tripe is that? If the Tories only ever benefitted the wealthy they'd never have got elected (there aren't enough wealthy people under one person, one vote). Similarly, if you're trying hard for yourself, your only use to Labour is as a tax cash cow. I think you'll find that the 140 tax rises brought in by Brown were all aimed at working people. Stamp duty, National Insurance, Fuel Duty, green subsidies etc. The 50p tax rate on the highest earners was a last minute idea before they left power after thirteen years.
[quote][p][bold]Ultimate Worrier[/bold] wrote: All this arguing between Labour and Tories all the time is pointless. Tory for the welathy, Labour for the working class. Simple as that. Surely it's about time the two parties were forced to work together for the benefit of EVERYONE in this country, and not just the section of society that they represent. Now that would be a true democracy.[/p][/quote]What tripe is that? If the Tories only ever benefitted the wealthy they'd never have got elected (there aren't enough wealthy people under one person, one vote). Similarly, if you're trying hard for yourself, your only use to Labour is as a tax cash cow. I think you'll find that the 140 tax rises brought in by Brown were all aimed at working people. Stamp duty, National Insurance, Fuel Duty, green subsidies etc. The 50p tax rate on the highest earners was a last minute idea before they left power after thirteen years. Mr Miffed
  • Score: 4

6:07pm Tue 19 Aug 14

endthelies says...

The tories also brought in cuts to working tax benefit, the bedroom tax(which affects working class folk on low incomes), they took away the right to free representation in cases of employment tribunals, they taken away the right to legal aid, they have denied disabled people their rightful benefits (and by cutting legal aid, it has made it even more difficult for people to get help in tribunal cases, of which there are thousands). Of course they want to help people who are less fortunate. That's why politicians needed a hefty pay rise whilst the rest of the country are struggling to feed themselves. Lets not forget, the Tories are only in government by default. They were not an elected government as such because it was a hung parliament. It will be very different next year I'm sure.
The tories also brought in cuts to working tax benefit, the bedroom tax(which affects working class folk on low incomes), they took away the right to free representation in cases of employment tribunals, they taken away the right to legal aid, they have denied disabled people their rightful benefits (and by cutting legal aid, it has made it even more difficult for people to get help in tribunal cases, of which there are thousands). Of course they want to help people who are less fortunate. That's why politicians needed a hefty pay rise whilst the rest of the country are struggling to feed themselves. Lets not forget, the Tories are only in government by default. They were not an elected government as such because it was a hung parliament. It will be very different next year I'm sure. endthelies
  • Score: 4

7:51pm Tue 19 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

endthelies wrote:
The tories also brought in cuts to working tax benefit, the bedroom tax(which affects working class folk on low incomes), they took away the right to free representation in cases of employment tribunals, they taken away the right to legal aid, they have denied disabled people their rightful benefits (and by cutting legal aid, it has made it even more difficult for people to get help in tribunal cases, of which there are thousands). Of course they want to help people who are less fortunate. That's why politicians needed a hefty pay rise whilst the rest of the country are struggling to feed themselves. Lets not forget, the Tories are only in government by default. They were not an elected government as such because it was a hung parliament. It will be very different next year I'm sure.
Everything you've mentioned is par for the course when you elect a right-wing government. It's not like the Tories his what they were going to do, all of that was either in the manifesto or a logical extension of things in their manifesto.

The country elected the Tories (as a minority government) in the full understanding that they would cut benefits and public spending - which they have done - and fix the economy which Labour allowed to collapse - which they have done.

Next year, assuming the economy continues to grow, it will be a Tory majority government. Ed Miliband isn't a credible PM, even his own party agrees that.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: The tories also brought in cuts to working tax benefit, the bedroom tax(which affects working class folk on low incomes), they took away the right to free representation in cases of employment tribunals, they taken away the right to legal aid, they have denied disabled people their rightful benefits (and by cutting legal aid, it has made it even more difficult for people to get help in tribunal cases, of which there are thousands). Of course they want to help people who are less fortunate. That's why politicians needed a hefty pay rise whilst the rest of the country are struggling to feed themselves. Lets not forget, the Tories are only in government by default. They were not an elected government as such because it was a hung parliament. It will be very different next year I'm sure.[/p][/quote]Everything you've mentioned is par for the course when you elect a right-wing government. It's not like the Tories his what they were going to do, all of that was either in the manifesto or a logical extension of things in their manifesto. The country elected the Tories (as a minority government) in the full understanding that they would cut benefits and public spending - which they have done - and fix the economy which Labour allowed to collapse - which they have done. Next year, assuming the economy continues to grow, it will be a Tory majority government. Ed Miliband isn't a credible PM, even his own party agrees that. mkaibear1
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Tue 19 Aug 14

endthelies says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
endthelies wrote:
The tories also brought in cuts to working tax benefit, the bedroom tax(which affects working class folk on low incomes), they took away the right to free representation in cases of employment tribunals, they taken away the right to legal aid, they have denied disabled people their rightful benefits (and by cutting legal aid, it has made it even more difficult for people to get help in tribunal cases, of which there are thousands). Of course they want to help people who are less fortunate. That's why politicians needed a hefty pay rise whilst the rest of the country are struggling to feed themselves. Lets not forget, the Tories are only in government by default. They were not an elected government as such because it was a hung parliament. It will be very different next year I'm sure.
Everything you've mentioned is par for the course when you elect a right-wing government. It's not like the Tories his what they were going to do, all of that was either in the manifesto or a logical extension of things in their manifesto.

The country elected the Tories (as a minority government) in the full understanding that they would cut benefits and public spending - which they have done - and fix the economy which Labour allowed to collapse - which they have done.

Next year, assuming the economy continues to grow, it will be a Tory majority government. Ed Miliband isn't a credible PM, even his own party agrees that.
Oh if its par for the course then that's ok then. People are dying whilst waiting for disability benefits but that's just par for the course with this government. People are not able to feed themselves and foodbanks have boomed, but that's ok, because they told us they would be doing that, (which they didn't) Well its not ok with me, In fact, its not ok for thousands of others too. I don't think Labour are the answer either unfortunately but I wouldn't vote Tory EVER. They are watching people die whilst withholding essential benefits and they know full well about it and yet they carry on regardless. This was printed just today

inhttp://www.dailyma
il.co.uk/news/articl
e-2334390/Anger-reco
rd-number-maimed-tro
ops-denied-disabilit
y-benefit-Government
s-controversial-asse
ssments.html fact.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: The tories also brought in cuts to working tax benefit, the bedroom tax(which affects working class folk on low incomes), they took away the right to free representation in cases of employment tribunals, they taken away the right to legal aid, they have denied disabled people their rightful benefits (and by cutting legal aid, it has made it even more difficult for people to get help in tribunal cases, of which there are thousands). Of course they want to help people who are less fortunate. That's why politicians needed a hefty pay rise whilst the rest of the country are struggling to feed themselves. Lets not forget, the Tories are only in government by default. They were not an elected government as such because it was a hung parliament. It will be very different next year I'm sure.[/p][/quote]Everything you've mentioned is par for the course when you elect a right-wing government. It's not like the Tories his what they were going to do, all of that was either in the manifesto or a logical extension of things in their manifesto. The country elected the Tories (as a minority government) in the full understanding that they would cut benefits and public spending - which they have done - and fix the economy which Labour allowed to collapse - which they have done. Next year, assuming the economy continues to grow, it will be a Tory majority government. Ed Miliband isn't a credible PM, even his own party agrees that.[/p][/quote]Oh if its par for the course then that's ok then. People are dying whilst waiting for disability benefits but that's just par for the course with this government. People are not able to feed themselves and foodbanks have boomed, but that's ok, because they told us they would be doing that, (which they didn't) Well its not ok with me, In fact, its not ok for thousands of others too. I don't think Labour are the answer either unfortunately but I wouldn't vote Tory EVER. They are watching people die whilst withholding essential benefits and they know full well about it and yet they carry on regardless. This was printed just today inhttp://www.dailyma il.co.uk/news/articl e-2334390/Anger-reco rd-number-maimed-tro ops-denied-disabilit y-benefit-Government s-controversial-asse ssments.html fact. endthelies
  • Score: 4

8:19pm Tue 19 Aug 14

endthelies says...

And here's another..

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/health/health
news/10703960/Dying-
forced-to-wait-eight
-weeks-instead-of-ei
ght-days-for-help-am
id-dire-benefits-ove
rhaul-MPs.html

and another rhttp://www.mirror.c
o.uk/news/uk-news/di
sabled-mark-wood-sta
rved-death-3194250
I could go on as there are many, many more
Read them and weep Ian Duncan Smith.
And here's another.. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/health/health news/10703960/Dying- forced-to-wait-eight -weeks-instead-of-ei ght-days-for-help-am id-dire-benefits-ove rhaul-MPs.html and another rhttp://www.mirror.c o.uk/news/uk-news/di sabled-mark-wood-sta rved-death-3194250 I could go on as there are many, many more Read them and weep Ian Duncan Smith. endthelies
  • Score: 4

9:25pm Tue 19 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

endthelies wrote:
And here's another..

http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/health/health

news/10703960/Dying-

forced-to-wait-eight

-weeks-instead-of-ei

ght-days-for-help-am

id-dire-benefits-ove

rhaul-MPs.html

and another rhttp://www.mirror.c

o.uk/news/uk-news/di

sabled-mark-wood-sta

rved-death-3194250
I could go on as there are many, many more
Read them and weep Ian Duncan Smith.
First and foremost, any death is a tragedy. It's not restricted to the current government though. There were deaths whilst waiting for benefits under the old government, there will be deaths under the next.

Cuts had to happen to stop our economy doing a Greece. They had to happen because Labour colossally messed up the economy by not planning for the downturn. When you have to make cuts you have to make hard choices and the consequence of that is that squeezed budgets hit those who are vulnerable.

They had a choice: cut and save the economy or don't cut and let the economy tank like the PIGS - which, I remind you, led to 50% cuts in public sector spending, which would kill off an awful lot more people.

So, you have a choice. Make the cuts and risk some vulnerable people dying, or don't make the cuts and ensure that *all* the vulnerable people are hit. Which one would you pick?
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: And here's another.. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/health/health news/10703960/Dying- forced-to-wait-eight -weeks-instead-of-ei ght-days-for-help-am id-dire-benefits-ove rhaul-MPs.html and another rhttp://www.mirror.c o.uk/news/uk-news/di sabled-mark-wood-sta rved-death-3194250 I could go on as there are many, many more Read them and weep Ian Duncan Smith.[/p][/quote]First and foremost, any death is a tragedy. It's not restricted to the current government though. There were deaths whilst waiting for benefits under the old government, there will be deaths under the next. Cuts had to happen to stop our economy doing a Greece. They had to happen because Labour colossally messed up the economy by not planning for the downturn. When you have to make cuts you have to make hard choices and the consequence of that is that squeezed budgets hit those who are vulnerable. They had a choice: cut and save the economy or don't cut and let the economy tank like the PIGS - which, I remind you, led to 50% cuts in public sector spending, which would kill off an awful lot more people. So, you have a choice. Make the cuts and risk some vulnerable people dying, or don't make the cuts and ensure that *all* the vulnerable people are hit. Which one would you pick? mkaibear1
  • Score: 0

11:28pm Tue 19 Aug 14

BassalegCountyFan says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
endthelies wrote:
And here's another..

http://www.telegraph


.co.uk/health/health


news/10703960/Dying-


forced-to-wait-eight


-weeks-instead-of-ei


ght-days-for-help-am


id-dire-benefits-ove


rhaul-MPs.html

and another rhttp://www.mirror.c


o.uk/news/uk-news/di


sabled-mark-wood-sta


rved-death-3194250
I could go on as there are many, many more
Read them and weep Ian Duncan Smith.
First and foremost, any death is a tragedy. It's not restricted to the current government though. There were deaths whilst waiting for benefits under the old government, there will be deaths under the next.

Cuts had to happen to stop our economy doing a Greece. They had to happen because Labour colossally messed up the economy by not planning for the downturn. When you have to make cuts you have to make hard choices and the consequence of that is that squeezed budgets hit those who are vulnerable.

They had a choice: cut and save the economy or don't cut and let the economy tank like the PIGS - which, I remind you, led to 50% cuts in public sector spending, which would kill off an awful lot more people.

So, you have a choice. Make the cuts and risk some vulnerable people dying, or don't make the cuts and ensure that *all* the vulnerable people are hit. Which one would you pick?
I disagree with your view on this mkaibear.

Firstly as much as the Tories repeatedly try to claim it is, the financial crisis which hit in 2008 wasn't caused by Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling or Labour. It was caused by the greed of speculators and bankers who played casino capitalism - just like in the Wall Street Crash 80 years earlier. The City of London and Wall Street should have been more tightly regulated by governments of all political persuasions.

I accept that in tough financial times there is a need to make some cutbacks. However, the Tory-Lib Dem Government has caused terrible misery to millions of people since 2010 as nearly all their cuts have targeted vulnerable people. At the same time, millionaires have had a hefty tax cut. Considering we're all meant to be 'in this together', is that fair?

More to the point, can a government which claims to be responsibly tightening the books legitimately allow an institution like the Royal Mail to be sold off in a botched deal that has short-changed the country by billions of pounds? Or wasted millions on the failed 'free' schools programme and the disastrous switchover to Universal Credit which has cost eye-watering amounts of money while causing huge levels of unnecessary strife?
The Tories (and Lib Dems) aren't just uncaring, they're uneconomical!
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: And here's another.. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/health/health news/10703960/Dying- forced-to-wait-eight -weeks-instead-of-ei ght-days-for-help-am id-dire-benefits-ove rhaul-MPs.html and another rhttp://www.mirror.c o.uk/news/uk-news/di sabled-mark-wood-sta rved-death-3194250 I could go on as there are many, many more Read them and weep Ian Duncan Smith.[/p][/quote]First and foremost, any death is a tragedy. It's not restricted to the current government though. There were deaths whilst waiting for benefits under the old government, there will be deaths under the next. Cuts had to happen to stop our economy doing a Greece. They had to happen because Labour colossally messed up the economy by not planning for the downturn. When you have to make cuts you have to make hard choices and the consequence of that is that squeezed budgets hit those who are vulnerable. They had a choice: cut and save the economy or don't cut and let the economy tank like the PIGS - which, I remind you, led to 50% cuts in public sector spending, which would kill off an awful lot more people. So, you have a choice. Make the cuts and risk some vulnerable people dying, or don't make the cuts and ensure that *all* the vulnerable people are hit. Which one would you pick?[/p][/quote]I disagree with your view on this mkaibear. Firstly as much as the Tories repeatedly try to claim it is, the financial crisis which hit in 2008 wasn't caused by Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling or Labour. It was caused by the greed of speculators and bankers who played casino capitalism - just like in the Wall Street Crash 80 years earlier. The City of London and Wall Street should have been more tightly regulated by governments of all political persuasions. I accept that in tough financial times there is a need to make some cutbacks. However, the Tory-Lib Dem Government has caused terrible misery to millions of people since 2010 as nearly all their cuts have targeted vulnerable people. At the same time, millionaires have had a hefty tax cut. Considering we're all meant to be 'in this together', is that fair? More to the point, can a government which claims to be responsibly tightening the books legitimately allow an institution like the Royal Mail to be sold off in a botched deal that has short-changed the country by billions of pounds? Or wasted millions on the failed 'free' schools programme and the disastrous switchover to Universal Credit which has cost eye-watering amounts of money while causing huge levels of unnecessary strife? The Tories (and Lib Dems) aren't just uncaring, they're uneconomical! BassalegCountyFan
  • Score: 7

7:34am Wed 20 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

You are wrong, BassalegCountyFan

Firstly you are wrong by trying to shift the blame away from Labour for the financial problems the country is in. Labour did not cause the global financial crisis but they utterly mismanaged the economy, failed to prepare for the inevitable bust, borrowed recklessly during the boom years and then left the country holding the bag.

Secondly you are wrong in your assessment of the coalition tax cuts - perhaps you're unaware that as both a percentage of their income and in absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more tax than under *any other government in history*. Far from being biased against the wealthy the Coalition have gone after them much more effectively than Labour ever did.

Thirdly the Royal Mail privatisation didn't cost the country billions of pounds. In any stock offering pricing shares is a delicate balance, you need them at an attractive price for all classes of investors. The government's advisors erred on the side of caution in their pricing and this has meant that a good number of working-class posties and managers got a nice little bonus (which seems fair is it was their hard work which made Royal Mail attractive to investors).

Fourthly, UC hasn't been rolled out yet because they are doing it slowly and doing it properly. Having all payments calculated automatically is a dream to my friends who are on benefits - they are getting knocked over the head time and time again by mistakes made by Job Centre staff, and taking them out of the calculations will improve services dramatically. It's a long running process and I'm glad they've not done a half-assed attempt at it. It's all about investing in the future and sometimes you have to invest money to save money.

Fifthly, I can't disagree with you about free schools. It certainly seems the coalition education policy has been a bit... lacking in sense (thank you Michael Gove...) I think I see what they are trying to do in improving choice and access but the way it has been done just doesn't in my mind work at all.

But governments do make mistakes. When you try something new you have to be prepared to fail. It'll be interesting to see what the Tories have in their 2015 manifesto for education.
You are wrong, BassalegCountyFan Firstly you are wrong by trying to shift the blame away from Labour for the financial problems the country is in. Labour did not cause the global financial crisis but they utterly mismanaged the economy, failed to prepare for the inevitable bust, borrowed recklessly during the boom years and then left the country holding the bag. Secondly you are wrong in your assessment of the coalition tax cuts - perhaps you're unaware that as both a percentage of their income and in absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more tax than under *any other government in history*. Far from being biased against the wealthy the Coalition have gone after them much more effectively than Labour ever did. Thirdly the Royal Mail privatisation didn't cost the country billions of pounds. In any stock offering pricing shares is a delicate balance, you need them at an attractive price for all classes of investors. The government's advisors erred on the side of caution in their pricing and this has meant that a good number of working-class posties and managers got a nice little bonus (which seems fair is it was their hard work which made Royal Mail attractive to investors). Fourthly, UC hasn't been rolled out yet because they are doing it slowly and doing it properly. Having all payments calculated automatically is a dream to my friends who are on benefits - they are getting knocked over the head time and time again by mistakes made by Job Centre staff, and taking them out of the calculations will improve services dramatically. It's a long running process and I'm glad they've not done a half-assed attempt at it. It's all about investing in the future and sometimes you have to invest money to save money. Fifthly, I can't disagree with you about free schools. It certainly seems the coalition education policy has been a bit... lacking in sense (thank you Michael Gove...) I think I see what they are trying to do in improving choice and access but the way it has been done just doesn't in my mind work at all. But governments do make mistakes. When you try something new you have to be prepared to fail. It'll be interesting to see what the Tories have in their 2015 manifesto for education. mkaibear1
  • Score: -6

9:35am Wed 20 Aug 14

Mr Miffed says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
You are wrong, BassalegCountyFan

Firstly you are wrong by trying to shift the blame away from Labour for the financial problems the country is in. Labour did not cause the global financial crisis but they utterly mismanaged the economy, failed to prepare for the inevitable bust, borrowed recklessly during the boom years and then left the country holding the bag.

Secondly you are wrong in your assessment of the coalition tax cuts - perhaps you're unaware that as both a percentage of their income and in absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more tax than under *any other government in history*. Far from being biased against the wealthy the Coalition have gone after them much more effectively than Labour ever did.

Thirdly the Royal Mail privatisation didn't cost the country billions of pounds. In any stock offering pricing shares is a delicate balance, you need them at an attractive price for all classes of investors. The government's advisors erred on the side of caution in their pricing and this has meant that a good number of working-class posties and managers got a nice little bonus (which seems fair is it was their hard work which made Royal Mail attractive to investors).

Fourthly, UC hasn't been rolled out yet because they are doing it slowly and doing it properly. Having all payments calculated automatically is a dream to my friends who are on benefits - they are getting knocked over the head time and time again by mistakes made by Job Centre staff, and taking them out of the calculations will improve services dramatically. It's a long running process and I'm glad they've not done a half-assed attempt at it. It's all about investing in the future and sometimes you have to invest money to save money.

Fifthly, I can't disagree with you about free schools. It certainly seems the coalition education policy has been a bit... lacking in sense (thank you Michael Gove...) I think I see what they are trying to do in improving choice and access but the way it has been done just doesn't in my mind work at all.

But governments do make mistakes. When you try something new you have to be prepared to fail. It'll be interesting to see what the Tories have in their 2015 manifesto for education.
Bassaleg County Fan is prepared to ignore all the mistakes Labour made and the fact that they financed their mismanagement by the largest increase in tax-take on ordinary people in history, in so-called 'boom years'.
You won't find him explaining it's insane immigration policy, paying benefits to people who never worked and with no upper limit, the massive bloating of the public sector to no discernible benefit, and the car-crash which is devolution, the cost of which makes the, admittedly poor free schools policy look like peanuts. And you'll certainly never get any nodding dog Labour supporter to explain Liam Byrne's departing missive to his successor.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: You are wrong, BassalegCountyFan Firstly you are wrong by trying to shift the blame away from Labour for the financial problems the country is in. Labour did not cause the global financial crisis but they utterly mismanaged the economy, failed to prepare for the inevitable bust, borrowed recklessly during the boom years and then left the country holding the bag. Secondly you are wrong in your assessment of the coalition tax cuts - perhaps you're unaware that as both a percentage of their income and in absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more tax than under *any other government in history*. Far from being biased against the wealthy the Coalition have gone after them much more effectively than Labour ever did. Thirdly the Royal Mail privatisation didn't cost the country billions of pounds. In any stock offering pricing shares is a delicate balance, you need them at an attractive price for all classes of investors. The government's advisors erred on the side of caution in their pricing and this has meant that a good number of working-class posties and managers got a nice little bonus (which seems fair is it was their hard work which made Royal Mail attractive to investors). Fourthly, UC hasn't been rolled out yet because they are doing it slowly and doing it properly. Having all payments calculated automatically is a dream to my friends who are on benefits - they are getting knocked over the head time and time again by mistakes made by Job Centre staff, and taking them out of the calculations will improve services dramatically. It's a long running process and I'm glad they've not done a half-assed attempt at it. It's all about investing in the future and sometimes you have to invest money to save money. Fifthly, I can't disagree with you about free schools. It certainly seems the coalition education policy has been a bit... lacking in sense (thank you Michael Gove...) I think I see what they are trying to do in improving choice and access but the way it has been done just doesn't in my mind work at all. But governments do make mistakes. When you try something new you have to be prepared to fail. It'll be interesting to see what the Tories have in their 2015 manifesto for education.[/p][/quote]Bassaleg County Fan is prepared to ignore all the mistakes Labour made and the fact that they financed their mismanagement by the largest increase in tax-take on ordinary people in history, in so-called 'boom years'. You won't find him explaining it's insane immigration policy, paying benefits to people who never worked and with no upper limit, the massive bloating of the public sector to no discernible benefit, and the car-crash which is devolution, the cost of which makes the, admittedly poor free schools policy look like peanuts. And you'll certainly never get any nodding dog Labour supporter to explain Liam Byrne's departing missive to his successor. Mr Miffed
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Wed 20 Aug 14

endthelies says...

It is undeniable that under this government, the poorer in our society are suffering. I understand that wealthier people pay more tax but lets dissect that a little. If, as a shiftworker, you work two extra shifts, you have to pay more tax on that income. Now relatively, because a shiftworker earns less than a politician for example, that tax deduction will mean a lot more to the shiftworker than to that politician who earns thousands more per year than the shiftworker. What maybe means cutting down on the gardeners for the politician, means going without food or heating for the shiftworker with a family to support. Why is it though that all the austerity measures seem to have been aimed at the poorest in society. The rules were changed by the cons to make getting disability allowance harder than ever and people with an undeniable disability, such as the soldiers in my first post, are denied what they should be (by the governments own rules) entitled to. Atos have targets to work to to get people off disability, and they lie and twist their reports in order to do so. This is well reported. I'm sorry but if you feel that this government are not out to save all they can off the backs of the poor, you're very much mistaken.
It is undeniable that under this government, the poorer in our society are suffering. I understand that wealthier people pay more tax but lets dissect that a little. If, as a shiftworker, you work two extra shifts, you have to pay more tax on that income. Now relatively, because a shiftworker earns less than a politician for example, that tax deduction will mean a lot more to the shiftworker than to that politician who earns thousands more per year than the shiftworker. What maybe means cutting down on the gardeners for the politician, means going without food or heating for the shiftworker with a family to support. Why is it though that all the austerity measures seem to have been aimed at the poorest in society. The rules were changed by the cons to make getting disability allowance harder than ever and people with an undeniable disability, such as the soldiers in my first post, are denied what they should be (by the governments own rules) entitled to. Atos have targets to work to to get people off disability, and they lie and twist their reports in order to do so. This is well reported. I'm sorry but if you feel that this government are not out to save all they can off the backs of the poor, you're very much mistaken. endthelies
  • Score: 4

1:28pm Wed 20 Aug 14

endthelies says...

Mr Miffed wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
You are wrong, BassalegCountyFan

Firstly you are wrong by trying to shift the blame away from Labour for the financial problems the country is in. Labour did not cause the global financial crisis but they utterly mismanaged the economy, failed to prepare for the inevitable bust, borrowed recklessly during the boom years and then left the country holding the bag.

Secondly you are wrong in your assessment of the coalition tax cuts - perhaps you're unaware that as both a percentage of their income and in absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more tax than under *any other government in history*. Far from being biased against the wealthy the Coalition have gone after them much more effectively than Labour ever did.

Thirdly the Royal Mail privatisation didn't cost the country billions of pounds. In any stock offering pricing shares is a delicate balance, you need them at an attractive price for all classes of investors. The government's advisors erred on the side of caution in their pricing and this has meant that a good number of working-class posties and managers got a nice little bonus (which seems fair is it was their hard work which made Royal Mail attractive to investors).

Fourthly, UC hasn't been rolled out yet because they are doing it slowly and doing it properly. Having all payments calculated automatically is a dream to my friends who are on benefits - they are getting knocked over the head time and time again by mistakes made by Job Centre staff, and taking them out of the calculations will improve services dramatically. It's a long running process and I'm glad they've not done a half-assed attempt at it. It's all about investing in the future and sometimes you have to invest money to save money.

Fifthly, I can't disagree with you about free schools. It certainly seems the coalition education policy has been a bit... lacking in sense (thank you Michael Gove...) I think I see what they are trying to do in improving choice and access but the way it has been done just doesn't in my mind work at all.

But governments do make mistakes. When you try something new you have to be prepared to fail. It'll be interesting to see what the Tories have in their 2015 manifesto for education.
Bassaleg County Fan is prepared to ignore all the mistakes Labour made and the fact that they financed their mismanagement by the largest increase in tax-take on ordinary people in history, in so-called 'boom years'.
You won't find him explaining it's insane immigration policy, paying benefits to people who never worked and with no upper limit, the massive bloating of the public sector to no discernible benefit, and the car-crash which is devolution, the cost of which makes the, admittedly poor free schools policy look like peanuts. And you'll certainly never get any nodding dog Labour supporter to explain Liam Byrne's departing missive to his successor.
I also feel you are willing to ignore all the mistakes being made by this government. I myself am not.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Miffed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: You are wrong, BassalegCountyFan Firstly you are wrong by trying to shift the blame away from Labour for the financial problems the country is in. Labour did not cause the global financial crisis but they utterly mismanaged the economy, failed to prepare for the inevitable bust, borrowed recklessly during the boom years and then left the country holding the bag. Secondly you are wrong in your assessment of the coalition tax cuts - perhaps you're unaware that as both a percentage of their income and in absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more tax than under *any other government in history*. Far from being biased against the wealthy the Coalition have gone after them much more effectively than Labour ever did. Thirdly the Royal Mail privatisation didn't cost the country billions of pounds. In any stock offering pricing shares is a delicate balance, you need them at an attractive price for all classes of investors. The government's advisors erred on the side of caution in their pricing and this has meant that a good number of working-class posties and managers got a nice little bonus (which seems fair is it was their hard work which made Royal Mail attractive to investors). Fourthly, UC hasn't been rolled out yet because they are doing it slowly and doing it properly. Having all payments calculated automatically is a dream to my friends who are on benefits - they are getting knocked over the head time and time again by mistakes made by Job Centre staff, and taking them out of the calculations will improve services dramatically. It's a long running process and I'm glad they've not done a half-assed attempt at it. It's all about investing in the future and sometimes you have to invest money to save money. Fifthly, I can't disagree with you about free schools. It certainly seems the coalition education policy has been a bit... lacking in sense (thank you Michael Gove...) I think I see what they are trying to do in improving choice and access but the way it has been done just doesn't in my mind work at all. But governments do make mistakes. When you try something new you have to be prepared to fail. It'll be interesting to see what the Tories have in their 2015 manifesto for education.[/p][/quote]Bassaleg County Fan is prepared to ignore all the mistakes Labour made and the fact that they financed their mismanagement by the largest increase in tax-take on ordinary people in history, in so-called 'boom years'. You won't find him explaining it's insane immigration policy, paying benefits to people who never worked and with no upper limit, the massive bloating of the public sector to no discernible benefit, and the car-crash which is devolution, the cost of which makes the, admittedly poor free schools policy look like peanuts. And you'll certainly never get any nodding dog Labour supporter to explain Liam Byrne's departing missive to his successor.[/p][/quote]I also feel you are willing to ignore all the mistakes being made by this government. I myself am not. endthelies
  • Score: 2

1:49pm Wed 20 Aug 14

endthelies says...

GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS.

http://www.huffingto
npost.co.uk/2013/11/
21/uk-borrowing-_n_4
316084.html
GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2013/11/ 21/uk-borrowing-_n_4 316084.html endthelies
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Wed 20 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

endthelies wrote:
GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS.

http://www.huffingto

npost.co.uk/2013/11/

21/uk-borrowing-_n_4

316084.html
...and strangely enough Labour spent every single budget presentation in the House of Commons arguing he should borrow *more* than he was planning and make less cuts.

I wonder what the economy would look like now if Labour had got in?
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2013/11/ 21/uk-borrowing-_n_4 316084.html[/p][/quote]...and strangely enough Labour spent every single budget presentation in the House of Commons arguing he should borrow *more* than he was planning and make less cuts. I wonder what the economy would look like now if Labour had got in? mkaibear1
  • Score: -2

4:19pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Ultimate Worrier says...

Mr Miffed wrote:
Ultimate Worrier wrote:
All this arguing between Labour and Tories all the time is pointless. Tory for the welathy, Labour for the working class. Simple as that. Surely it's about time the two parties were forced to work together for the benefit of EVERYONE in this country, and not just the section of society that they represent. Now that would be a true democracy.
What tripe is that? If the Tories only ever benefitted the wealthy they'd never have got elected (there aren't enough wealthy people under one person, one vote). Similarly, if you're trying hard for yourself, your only use to Labour is as a tax cash cow. I think you'll find that the 140 tax rises brought in by Brown were all aimed at working people. Stamp duty, National Insurance, Fuel Duty, green subsidies etc. The 50p tax rate on the highest earners was a last minute idea before they left power after thirteen years.
Yet more political point scoring, further enhancing my point. Bravo.

I stand by my point that these parties should be working together not against each other. In what sort of democracy can a party which doesn't win an election, form a coalition with a party that was nowhere near winning it in order to wrestle power and govern jointly? What a joke. The sooner I earn enough money to leave this disjointed quasi-democracy the better.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Miffed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ultimate Worrier[/bold] wrote: All this arguing between Labour and Tories all the time is pointless. Tory for the welathy, Labour for the working class. Simple as that. Surely it's about time the two parties were forced to work together for the benefit of EVERYONE in this country, and not just the section of society that they represent. Now that would be a true democracy.[/p][/quote]What tripe is that? If the Tories only ever benefitted the wealthy they'd never have got elected (there aren't enough wealthy people under one person, one vote). Similarly, if you're trying hard for yourself, your only use to Labour is as a tax cash cow. I think you'll find that the 140 tax rises brought in by Brown were all aimed at working people. Stamp duty, National Insurance, Fuel Duty, green subsidies etc. The 50p tax rate on the highest earners was a last minute idea before they left power after thirteen years.[/p][/quote]Yet more political point scoring, further enhancing my point. Bravo. I stand by my point that these parties should be working together not against each other. In what sort of democracy can a party which doesn't win an election, form a coalition with a party that was nowhere near winning it in order to wrestle power and govern jointly? What a joke. The sooner I earn enough money to leave this disjointed quasi-democracy the better. Ultimate Worrier
  • Score: -2

4:27pm Wed 20 Aug 14

endthelies says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
endthelies wrote:
GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS.

http://www.huffingto


npost.co.uk/2013/11/


21/uk-borrowing-_n_4


316084.html
...and strangely enough Labour spent every single budget presentation in the House of Commons arguing he should borrow *more* than he was planning and make less cuts.

I wonder what the economy would look like now if Labour had got in?
good sidesweep mkaibear1. Deflect the issue why don't you :)
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2013/11/ 21/uk-borrowing-_n_4 316084.html[/p][/quote]...and strangely enough Labour spent every single budget presentation in the House of Commons arguing he should borrow *more* than he was planning and make less cuts. I wonder what the economy would look like now if Labour had got in?[/p][/quote]good sidesweep mkaibear1. Deflect the issue why don't you :) endthelies
  • Score: 3

4:29pm Wed 20 Aug 14

endthelies says...

Ultimate Worrier wrote:
Mr Miffed wrote:
Ultimate Worrier wrote:
All this arguing between Labour and Tories all the time is pointless. Tory for the welathy, Labour for the working class. Simple as that. Surely it's about time the two parties were forced to work together for the benefit of EVERYONE in this country, and not just the section of society that they represent. Now that would be a true democracy.
What tripe is that? If the Tories only ever benefitted the wealthy they'd never have got elected (there aren't enough wealthy people under one person, one vote). Similarly, if you're trying hard for yourself, your only use to Labour is as a tax cash cow. I think you'll find that the 140 tax rises brought in by Brown were all aimed at working people. Stamp duty, National Insurance, Fuel Duty, green subsidies etc. The 50p tax rate on the highest earners was a last minute idea before they left power after thirteen years.
Yet more political point scoring, further enhancing my point. Bravo.

I stand by my point that these parties should be working together not against each other. In what sort of democracy can a party which doesn't win an election, form a coalition with a party that was nowhere near winning it in order to wrestle power and govern jointly? What a joke. The sooner I earn enough money to leave this disjointed quasi-democracy the better.
In an ideal world, what you suggest would happen. I won't be holding my breath though.
[quote][p][bold]Ultimate Worrier[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Miffed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ultimate Worrier[/bold] wrote: All this arguing between Labour and Tories all the time is pointless. Tory for the welathy, Labour for the working class. Simple as that. Surely it's about time the two parties were forced to work together for the benefit of EVERYONE in this country, and not just the section of society that they represent. Now that would be a true democracy.[/p][/quote]What tripe is that? If the Tories only ever benefitted the wealthy they'd never have got elected (there aren't enough wealthy people under one person, one vote). Similarly, if you're trying hard for yourself, your only use to Labour is as a tax cash cow. I think you'll find that the 140 tax rises brought in by Brown were all aimed at working people. Stamp duty, National Insurance, Fuel Duty, green subsidies etc. The 50p tax rate on the highest earners was a last minute idea before they left power after thirteen years.[/p][/quote]Yet more political point scoring, further enhancing my point. Bravo. I stand by my point that these parties should be working together not against each other. In what sort of democracy can a party which doesn't win an election, form a coalition with a party that was nowhere near winning it in order to wrestle power and govern jointly? What a joke. The sooner I earn enough money to leave this disjointed quasi-democracy the better.[/p][/quote]In an ideal world, what you suggest would happen. I won't be holding my breath though. endthelies
  • Score: 4

5:23pm Wed 20 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

endthelies wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
endthelies wrote:
GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS.

http://www.huffingto



npost.co.uk/2013/11/



21/uk-borrowing-_n_4



316084.html
...and strangely enough Labour spent every single budget presentation in the House of Commons arguing he should borrow *more* than he was planning and make less cuts.

I wonder what the economy would look like now if Labour had got in?
good sidesweep mkaibear1. Deflect the issue why don't you :)
That is the issue. It was reckless borrowing against the rising economy which sunk finances and Osborne was forced to borrow more to keep the programmes Labour put in place funded - as otherwise the cuts would have hit harder those who could least afford it.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2013/11/ 21/uk-borrowing-_n_4 316084.html[/p][/quote]...and strangely enough Labour spent every single budget presentation in the House of Commons arguing he should borrow *more* than he was planning and make less cuts. I wonder what the economy would look like now if Labour had got in?[/p][/quote]good sidesweep mkaibear1. Deflect the issue why don't you :)[/p][/quote]That is the issue. It was reckless borrowing against the rising economy which sunk finances and Osborne was forced to borrow more to keep the programmes Labour put in place funded - as otherwise the cuts would have hit harder those who could least afford it. mkaibear1
  • Score: -5

7:32pm Wed 20 Aug 14

endthelies says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
endthelies wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
endthelies wrote:
GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS.

http://www.huffingto




npost.co.uk/2013/11/




21/uk-borrowing-_n_4




316084.html
...and strangely enough Labour spent every single budget presentation in the House of Commons arguing he should borrow *more* than he was planning and make less cuts.

I wonder what the economy would look like now if Labour had got in?
good sidesweep mkaibear1. Deflect the issue why don't you :)
That is the issue. It was reckless borrowing against the rising economy which sunk finances and Osborne was forced to borrow more to keep the programmes Labour put in place funded - as otherwise the cuts would have hit harder those who could least afford it.
ah right. At least you admit in your post that the cuts cost those who can least afford it.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2013/11/ 21/uk-borrowing-_n_4 316084.html[/p][/quote]...and strangely enough Labour spent every single budget presentation in the House of Commons arguing he should borrow *more* than he was planning and make less cuts. I wonder what the economy would look like now if Labour had got in?[/p][/quote]good sidesweep mkaibear1. Deflect the issue why don't you :)[/p][/quote]That is the issue. It was reckless borrowing against the rising economy which sunk finances and Osborne was forced to borrow more to keep the programmes Labour put in place funded - as otherwise the cuts would have hit harder those who could least afford it.[/p][/quote]ah right. At least you admit in your post that the cuts cost those who can least afford it. endthelies
  • Score: 1

7:37pm Wed 20 Aug 14

endthelies says...

I guess we disabled folk should thank our lucky stars that the cons have made it so hard to get benefits for the sick and dying or otherwise some may not be able to have anything at all. Hang on a minute. Some are not able to access what they're entitled to already so what else would they have done. Set up camps to put us all in!!!
I guess we disabled folk should thank our lucky stars that the cons have made it so hard to get benefits for the sick and dying or otherwise some may not be able to have anything at all. Hang on a minute. Some are not able to access what they're entitled to already so what else would they have done. Set up camps to put us all in!!! endthelies
  • Score: 2

7:52pm Wed 20 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

endthelies wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
endthelies wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
endthelies wrote:
GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS.

http://www.huffingto





npost.co.uk/2013/11/





21/uk-borrowing-_n_4





316084.html
...and strangely enough Labour spent every single budget presentation in the House of Commons arguing he should borrow *more* than he was planning and make less cuts.

I wonder what the economy would look like now if Labour had got in?
good sidesweep mkaibear1. Deflect the issue why don't you :)
That is the issue. It was reckless borrowing against the rising economy which sunk finances and Osborne was forced to borrow more to keep the programmes Labour put in place funded - as otherwise the cuts would have hit harder those who could least afford it.
ah right. At least you admit in your post that the cuts cost those who can least afford it.
Of course. Any economic downturn disproportionately affects the least well off. It's a shame Labour didn't keep that in mind and make provisions for mitigating it when the money was rolling in.

It was a stark choice: cut and see those who are poorest get hit - or let the economy continue on its road to ruin and let those who are poorest plus a load of other people get hit.

Either way, due to Labour's mismanagement, the poorest were going to get hit.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: GEORGE OSBORNE HAS BORROWED MORE IN THREE YEARS THAN LABOUR DID IN THIRTEEN YEARS. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2013/11/ 21/uk-borrowing-_n_4 316084.html[/p][/quote]...and strangely enough Labour spent every single budget presentation in the House of Commons arguing he should borrow *more* than he was planning and make less cuts. I wonder what the economy would look like now if Labour had got in?[/p][/quote]good sidesweep mkaibear1. Deflect the issue why don't you :)[/p][/quote]That is the issue. It was reckless borrowing against the rising economy which sunk finances and Osborne was forced to borrow more to keep the programmes Labour put in place funded - as otherwise the cuts would have hit harder those who could least afford it.[/p][/quote]ah right. At least you admit in your post that the cuts cost those who can least afford it.[/p][/quote]Of course. Any economic downturn disproportionately affects the least well off. It's a shame Labour didn't keep that in mind and make provisions for mitigating it when the money was rolling in. It was a stark choice: cut and see those who are poorest get hit - or let the economy continue on its road to ruin and let those who are poorest plus a load of other people get hit. Either way, due to Labour's mismanagement, the poorest were going to get hit. mkaibear1
  • Score: -6

7:56pm Wed 20 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

endthelies wrote:
I guess we disabled folk should thank our lucky stars that the cons have made it so hard to get benefits for the sick and dying or otherwise some may not be able to have anything at all. Hang on a minute. Some are not able to access what they're entitled to already so what else would they have done. Set up camps to put us all in!!!
Yeah, all my mates who are on long-term disability are finding it really tough and there's an understandable anger towards the coalition (as they were in power when the crash really hit home). It doesn't changewhose fault the economic downturn is and it doesn't change who's responsible for the current problems.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I guess we disabled folk should thank our lucky stars that the cons have made it so hard to get benefits for the sick and dying or otherwise some may not be able to have anything at all. Hang on a minute. Some are not able to access what they're entitled to already so what else would they have done. Set up camps to put us all in!!![/p][/quote]Yeah, all my mates who are on long-term disability are finding it really tough and there's an understandable anger towards the coalition (as they were in power when the crash really hit home). It doesn't changewhose fault the economic downturn is and it doesn't change who's responsible for the current problems. mkaibear1
  • Score: -4

10:05pm Wed 20 Aug 14

PrivateTom10000001 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
endthelies wrote:
The tories also brought in cuts to working tax benefit, the bedroom tax(which affects working class folk on low incomes), they took away the right to free representation in cases of employment tribunals, they taken away the right to legal aid, they have denied disabled people their rightful benefits (and by cutting legal aid, it has made it even more difficult for people to get help in tribunal cases, of which there are thousands). Of course they want to help people who are less fortunate. That's why politicians needed a hefty pay rise whilst the rest of the country are struggling to feed themselves. Lets not forget, the Tories are only in government by default. They were not an elected government as such because it was a hung parliament. It will be very different next year I'm sure.
Everything you've mentioned is par for the course when you elect a right-wing government. It's not like the Tories his what they were going to do, all of that was either in the manifesto or a logical extension of things in their manifesto.

The country elected the Tories (as a minority government) in the full understanding that they would cut benefits and public spending - which they have done - and fix the economy which Labour allowed to collapse - which they have done.

Next year, assuming the economy continues to grow, it will be a Tory majority government. Ed Miliband isn't a credible PM, even his own party agrees that.
This gov has sanctioned a policy of demonizing the poor & the unlucky as a method to sell austerity policies to the middle class.

“fix the economy which Labour allowed to collapse” mmmmm
“in the full understanding that they would cut benefits and public spending” !!! mmmmm
“The country elected the Tories (as a minority government)!! mmmmm

Not really elected as such, but rather let in through the back door thanks to Libdem lowlife who will uturn on almost everything. The LibDems didn't soften the recession by joining the coalition they helped push the knife of austerity into the poor & middleclass and for their betrayal of the many that voted for them they will be kicked out of the back door and lets put a bolt on that door to stop Ukip trying the same stunt!.
Labour are currently a dead cert to win the next election, and I for one will welcome that after the immense vandalism this bunch of overprivileged posh boys have done to the fabric of society. It's possible that some rabbit will appear out of a hat for the Etonians between now and then, but hopefully not, and we can consign this corrupt bunch of 19th Century throwback aristos to the dustbin of history, where they belong.

The mechanics of austerity are the same as they were in The Great Depression, it punishes the poor for the sins of the rich, it was banks & hedgefund mgrs funds that brought the west to the brink of ruin not Labour or unions who even when militant don't destroy economies. Millions of people in poverty live in UK households where at least one person works, the Living Wage Commission has said. It recommended that the government should pay its own workers a "living wage".
The commission is an independent body that brings together business, trade unions and civil society.

It said that "the majority of people in poverty in the UK are working".
This continues to fall on deaf ears of the coalition government that nobody voted for!

However David Cameron has demonstrated that he is indeed a listening man!
...he employed Andy Coulson

without the Banking Crisis, this country would be £1.5tn better off, with no need for cuts or Austerity, Tories actually believe that Gordon Brown caused the Banks to fail....yeah right
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: The tories also brought in cuts to working tax benefit, the bedroom tax(which affects working class folk on low incomes), they took away the right to free representation in cases of employment tribunals, they taken away the right to legal aid, they have denied disabled people their rightful benefits (and by cutting legal aid, it has made it even more difficult for people to get help in tribunal cases, of which there are thousands). Of course they want to help people who are less fortunate. That's why politicians needed a hefty pay rise whilst the rest of the country are struggling to feed themselves. Lets not forget, the Tories are only in government by default. They were not an elected government as such because it was a hung parliament. It will be very different next year I'm sure.[/p][/quote]Everything you've mentioned is par for the course when you elect a right-wing government. It's not like the Tories his what they were going to do, all of that was either in the manifesto or a logical extension of things in their manifesto. The country elected the Tories (as a minority government) in the full understanding that they would cut benefits and public spending - which they have done - and fix the economy which Labour allowed to collapse - which they have done. Next year, assuming the economy continues to grow, it will be a Tory majority government. Ed Miliband isn't a credible PM, even his own party agrees that.[/p][/quote]This gov has sanctioned a policy of demonizing the poor & the unlucky as a method to sell austerity policies to the middle class. “fix the economy which Labour allowed to collapse” mmmmm “in the full understanding that they would cut benefits and public spending” !!! mmmmm “The country elected the Tories (as a minority government)!! mmmmm Not really elected as such, but rather let in through the back door thanks to Libdem lowlife who will uturn on almost everything. The LibDems didn't soften the recession by joining the coalition they helped push the knife of austerity into the poor & middleclass and for their betrayal of the many that voted for them they will be kicked out of the back door and lets put a bolt on that door to stop Ukip trying the same stunt!. Labour are currently a dead cert to win the next election, and I for one will welcome that after the immense vandalism this bunch of overprivileged posh boys have done to the fabric of society. It's possible that some rabbit will appear out of a hat for the Etonians between now and then, but hopefully not, and we can consign this corrupt bunch of 19th Century throwback aristos to the dustbin of history, where they belong. The mechanics of austerity are the same as they were in The Great Depression, it punishes the poor for the sins of the rich, it was banks & hedgefund mgrs funds that brought the west to the brink of ruin not Labour or unions who even when militant don't destroy economies. Millions of people in poverty live in UK households where at least one person works, the Living Wage Commission has said. It recommended that the government should pay its own workers a "living wage". The commission is an independent body that brings together business, trade unions and civil society. It said that "the majority of people in poverty in the UK are working". This continues to fall on deaf ears of the coalition government that nobody voted for! However David Cameron has demonstrated that he is indeed a listening man! ...he employed Andy Coulson without the Banking Crisis, this country would be £1.5tn better off, with no need for cuts or Austerity, Tories actually believe that Gordon Brown caused the Banks to fail....yeah right PrivateTom10000001
  • Score: 11

10:12pm Wed 20 Aug 14

endthelies says...

Good post PrivateTom and all very true.
Good post PrivateTom and all very true. endthelies
  • Score: 7

10:21pm Wed 20 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Hey Tom why not go back and read what I said. labour didn't cause the banks to fail but they did utterly fail to prepare for a financial slump. They borrowed whilst the economy was looking good, then borrowed some more to try to prop it up, then spent it all and left us holding the bag.

"I'm sorry, there's no money left"...

Interesting that Labour is now so keen on the Living wage when they consistently failed to introduce it in their 13 years as a majority government.

The country doesn't like the Tories, they never have, but the general public recognises that they are the only party who can actually keep the recovery going. Labour have consistently lobbied for more borrowing, consistently lobbied for less cuts, consistently lobbied for a " Plan B" but fortunately there is no Plan B. We're doing better than any other developed nation, even manufacturing, left to rot on the vine under Labour, is being boosted by Coalition policies.

Come next May the general public will be faced with a simple choice: let the people who are fixing the economy back in, or let the people who fiddled whilst Rome burned and let the economy slide into ruin back in.

...I agree, it's a foregone conclusion, just not the one you want.
Hey Tom why not go back and read what I said. labour didn't cause the banks to fail but they did utterly fail to prepare for a financial slump. They borrowed whilst the economy was looking good, then borrowed some more to try to prop it up, then spent it all and left us holding the bag. "I'm sorry, there's no money left"... Interesting that Labour is now so keen on the Living wage when they consistently failed to introduce it in their 13 years as a majority government. The country doesn't like the Tories, they never have, but the general public recognises that they are the only party who can actually keep the recovery going. Labour have consistently lobbied for more borrowing, consistently lobbied for less cuts, consistently lobbied for a " Plan B" but fortunately there is no Plan B. We're doing better than any other developed nation, even manufacturing, left to rot on the vine under Labour, is being boosted by Coalition policies. Come next May the general public will be faced with a simple choice: let the people who are fixing the economy back in, or let the people who fiddled whilst Rome burned and let the economy slide into ruin back in. ...I agree, it's a foregone conclusion, just not the one you want. mkaibear1
  • Score: -4

10:36pm Wed 20 Aug 14

endthelies says...

So ask yourself why the country doesn't like the Tories (your words). And if the country doesn't like the Tories, how are they likely to win the next election? And as for we are doing better than any other developed nation, tell that to the people in the queues for food banks, I'm sure you'd get a good response.
So ask yourself why the country doesn't like the Tories (your words). And if the country doesn't like the Tories, how are they likely to win the next election? And as for we are doing better than any other developed nation, tell that to the people in the queues for food banks, I'm sure you'd get a good response. endthelies
  • Score: 2

10:40pm Wed 20 Aug 14

endthelies says...

Just one last thing before bed, Where is this 'recovery' because I haven't seen any evidence of it at all.
Just one last thing before bed, Where is this 'recovery' because I haven't seen any evidence of it at all. endthelies
  • Score: 1

10:42pm Wed 20 Aug 14

PrivateTom10000001 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
Hey Tom why not go back and read what I said. labour didn't cause the banks to fail but they did utterly fail to prepare for a financial slump. They borrowed whilst the economy was looking good, then borrowed some more to try to prop it up, then spent it all and left us holding the bag.

"I'm sorry, there's no money left"...

Interesting that Labour is now so keen on the Living wage when they consistently failed to introduce it in their 13 years as a majority government.

The country doesn't like the Tories, they never have, but the general public recognises that they are the only party who can actually keep the recovery going. Labour have consistently lobbied for more borrowing, consistently lobbied for less cuts, consistently lobbied for a " Plan B" but fortunately there is no Plan B. We're doing better than any other developed nation, even manufacturing, left to rot on the vine under Labour, is being boosted by Coalition policies.

Come next May the general public will be faced with a simple choice: let the people who are fixing the economy back in, or let the people who fiddled whilst Rome burned and let the economy slide into ruin back in.

...I agree, it's a foregone conclusion, just not the one you want.
"Interesting that Labour is now so keen on the Living wage when they consistently failed to introduce it in their 13 years as a majority government"


I think you will find that Neil Kinnock was instrumental in promoting fair wages, it was indeed the very man that pushed the minimum wage and the tory mindset were against it at the time,they said it would cost jobs!! what a lie it did not.
Trickle down economics do not work. 'Flexible' labour markets have merely allowed employers to take more profit from productivity without passing the benefits on to workers in the form of wage increases and to move jobs anywhere in the world. It does not matter how hard you work because Cameron is hell bent on finishing Thatchers legacy of destroying workers rights. There has only ever been one way for workers to ensure that they receive a fair share of the pie and protect their jobs and that is to organise themselves into unions to bargain for better wages and conditions. Unfortunately the attack on representation in the workplace by the Tory led government is now reaping the rewards for the wealthy few.

http://youtu.be/3U1D
_T-tSTw
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: Hey Tom why not go back and read what I said. labour didn't cause the banks to fail but they did utterly fail to prepare for a financial slump. They borrowed whilst the economy was looking good, then borrowed some more to try to prop it up, then spent it all and left us holding the bag. "I'm sorry, there's no money left"... Interesting that Labour is now so keen on the Living wage when they consistently failed to introduce it in their 13 years as a majority government. The country doesn't like the Tories, they never have, but the general public recognises that they are the only party who can actually keep the recovery going. Labour have consistently lobbied for more borrowing, consistently lobbied for less cuts, consistently lobbied for a " Plan B" but fortunately there is no Plan B. We're doing better than any other developed nation, even manufacturing, left to rot on the vine under Labour, is being boosted by Coalition policies. Come next May the general public will be faced with a simple choice: let the people who are fixing the economy back in, or let the people who fiddled whilst Rome burned and let the economy slide into ruin back in. ...I agree, it's a foregone conclusion, just not the one you want.[/p][/quote]"Interesting that Labour is now so keen on the Living wage when they consistently failed to introduce it in their 13 years as a majority government" I think you will find that Neil Kinnock was instrumental in promoting fair wages, it was indeed the very man that pushed the minimum wage and the tory mindset were against it at the time,they said it would cost jobs!! what a lie it did not. Trickle down economics do not work. 'Flexible' labour markets have merely allowed employers to take more profit from productivity without passing the benefits on to workers in the form of wage increases and to move jobs anywhere in the world. It does not matter how hard you work because Cameron is hell bent on finishing Thatchers legacy of destroying workers rights. There has only ever been one way for workers to ensure that they receive a fair share of the pie and protect their jobs and that is to organise themselves into unions to bargain for better wages and conditions. Unfortunately the attack on representation in the workplace by the Tory led government is now reaping the rewards for the wealthy few. http://youtu.be/3U1D _T-tSTw PrivateTom10000001
  • Score: 9

10:44pm Wed 20 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Unfortunately a recession hits those at the bottom hardest (like me, made redundant because of the cuts). Recoveries come to those at the bottom last. It's the nature of economies.

The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history, for example, but it's a long job to fix the mess Labour left.

People won't forget that.
Unfortunately a recession hits those at the bottom hardest (like me, made redundant because of the cuts). Recoveries come to those at the bottom last. It's the nature of economies. The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history, for example, but it's a long job to fix the mess Labour left. People won't forget that. mkaibear1
  • Score: -7

10:52pm Wed 20 Aug 14

PrivateTom10000001 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
Unfortunately a recession hits those at the bottom hardest (like me, made redundant because of the cuts). Recoveries come to those at the bottom last. It's the nature of economies.

The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history, for example, but it's a long job to fix the mess Labour left.

People won't forget that.
"The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history"

absolutely PML hahahaha..... your so funny!
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately a recession hits those at the bottom hardest (like me, made redundant because of the cuts). Recoveries come to those at the bottom last. It's the nature of economies. The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history, for example, but it's a long job to fix the mess Labour left. People won't forget that.[/p][/quote]"The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history" absolutely PML hahahaha..... your so funny! PrivateTom10000001
  • Score: 7

10:52pm Wed 20 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Ah, Tom, you are conflating "minimum wage" and the "living wage". It was the Living Wage that Labour refused to introduce on several occasions.

I don't think we're going to agree on this one. I have enjoyed the debate though. Thank you Tom and especially endthelies for keeping it impersonal and (for want of a better word) honourable!
Ah, Tom, you are conflating "minimum wage" and the "living wage". It was the Living Wage that Labour refused to introduce on several occasions. I don't think we're going to agree on this one. I have enjoyed the debate though. Thank you Tom and especially endthelies for keeping it impersonal and (for want of a better word) honourable! mkaibear1
  • Score: -5

10:59pm Wed 20 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

PrivateTom10000001 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
Unfortunately a recession hits those at the bottom hardest (like me, made redundant because of the cuts). Recoveries come to those at the bottom last. It's the nature of economies.

The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history, for example, but it's a long job to fix the mess Labour left.

People won't forget that.
"The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history"

absolutely PML hahahaha..... your so funny!
Do the maths. Numbers don't lie.

In both relative and absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more now than under any other government in history.
[quote][p][bold]PrivateTom10000001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately a recession hits those at the bottom hardest (like me, made redundant because of the cuts). Recoveries come to those at the bottom last. It's the nature of economies. The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history, for example, but it's a long job to fix the mess Labour left. People won't forget that.[/p][/quote]"The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history" absolutely PML hahahaha..... your so funny![/p][/quote]Do the maths. Numbers don't lie. In both relative and absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more now than under any other government in history. mkaibear1
  • Score: -4

7:20am Thu 21 Aug 14

PrivateTom10000001 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
PrivateTom10000001 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
Unfortunately a recession hits those at the bottom hardest (like me, made redundant because of the cuts). Recoveries come to those at the bottom last. It's the nature of economies.

The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history, for example, but it's a long job to fix the mess Labour left.

People won't forget that.
"The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history"

absolutely PML hahahaha..... your so funny!
Do the maths. Numbers don't lie.

In both relative and absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more now than under any other government in history.
I do miss the bad old days of Labour, everyone had a job, 13 years of solid growth, and disabled people didn't have to pay the bedroom tax...them where the days.

It doesn't say much for the UK economy when its greatest job generator since the crash has been self employment where wages fell by 22%, With the suspicion that many of those "running their own business" are doing so involuntarily!
What a great economic recovery by the Tories food banks and soup kitchens everywhere, high street shops closing down, inflation up.
Good luck to all getting exam results today . Sorry kids there are few jobs but no worry nepotism is running strong so if you know the right people and your face fits, hey pesto.

26 Million Brits live on the breadline, Thanks to the Tories
A LOST generation of one million youngsters are now NEETs Not in Education, Employment or Training. So far our cuts have hit, Children, Students and the Disabled, I could never vote for any political party, that takes money from disabled people, while giving millionaires huge Tax Cuts

Anyone remember when silly Norman Lamont and his side kick David Cameron hiked interest rates up to 15.8%, WARNING they will do it again.

http://www.dailystar
.co.uk/news/latest-n
ews/330027/26-Millio
n-Brits-live-on-the-
breadline
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PrivateTom10000001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately a recession hits those at the bottom hardest (like me, made redundant because of the cuts). Recoveries come to those at the bottom last. It's the nature of economies. The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history, for example, but it's a long job to fix the mess Labour left. People won't forget that.[/p][/quote]"The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history" absolutely PML hahahaha..... your so funny![/p][/quote]Do the maths. Numbers don't lie. In both relative and absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more now than under any other government in history.[/p][/quote]I do miss the bad old days of Labour, everyone had a job, 13 years of solid growth, and disabled people didn't have to pay the bedroom tax...them where the days. It doesn't say much for the UK economy when its greatest job generator since the crash has been self employment where wages fell by 22%, With the suspicion that many of those "running their own business" are doing so involuntarily! What a great economic recovery by the Tories food banks and soup kitchens everywhere, high street shops closing down, inflation up. Good luck to all getting exam results today . Sorry kids there are few jobs but no worry nepotism is running strong so if you know the right people and your face fits, hey pesto. 26 Million Brits live on the breadline, Thanks to the Tories A LOST generation of one million youngsters are now NEETs Not in Education, Employment or Training. So far our cuts have hit, Children, Students and the Disabled, I could never vote for any political party, that takes money from disabled people, while giving millionaires huge Tax Cuts Anyone remember when silly Norman Lamont and his side kick David Cameron hiked interest rates up to 15.8%, WARNING they will do it again. http://www.dailystar .co.uk/news/latest-n ews/330027/26-Millio n-Brits-live-on-the- breadline PrivateTom10000001
  • Score: 5

8:02am Thu 21 Aug 14

jimmysmith says...

varteg1 wrote:
pwlldu wrote:
Labour's very good at playing the blame game.
And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation.
very well said varteg .wales is in the state its in now because of thatchers tory government .she destroyed wales and its never recovered .the tories have done nothing for wales EVER
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Labour's very good at playing the blame game.[/p][/quote]And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation.[/p][/quote]very well said varteg .wales is in the state its in now because of thatchers tory government .she destroyed wales and its never recovered .the tories have done nothing for wales EVER jimmysmith
  • Score: -1

9:10am Thu 21 Aug 14

Pearly13 says...

What
What Pearly13
  • Score: -1

9:19am Thu 21 Aug 14

Pearly13 says...

I'm not sure which is worse; the rabid 'this is my politics and I'll ignore the facts' or the 'i'll just be contradictory and awkward because I am anonymous and can get away with it'.

What about the truth? I HATE politicians. However, this government ( which I do not support) inherited the worse financial situation in our history. In the week before the election, knowing there was nothing left, Gordon Brown signed off on an additional £6bn of spending he knew was unaffordable. Reckless, stupid and criminally foolhardy management of the country's finances brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. The Govt, when it took over the reins had to keep mum about the true extent of the problem to stop our borrowing costs soaring like Greece.

I HATE this Government, but letting the last mob back makes me weep with despair at the stupidity of our leaders and the mindless followings of the electorate.
I'm not sure which is worse; the rabid 'this is my politics and I'll ignore the facts' or the 'i'll just be contradictory and awkward because I am anonymous and can get away with it'. What about the truth? I HATE politicians. However, this government ( which I do not support) inherited the worse financial situation in our history. In the week before the election, knowing there was nothing left, Gordon Brown signed off on an additional £6bn of spending he knew was unaffordable. Reckless, stupid and criminally foolhardy management of the country's finances brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. The Govt, when it took over the reins had to keep mum about the true extent of the problem to stop our borrowing costs soaring like Greece. I HATE this Government, but letting the last mob back makes me weep with despair at the stupidity of our leaders and the mindless followings of the electorate. Pearly13
  • Score: 2

9:29am Thu 21 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

PrivateTom10000001 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
PrivateTom10000001 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
Unfortunately a recession hits those at the bottom hardest (like me, made redundant because of the cuts). Recoveries come to those at the bottom last. It's the nature of economies.

The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history, for example, but it's a long job to fix the mess Labour left.

People won't forget that.
"The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history"

absolutely PML hahahaha..... your so funny!
Do the maths. Numbers don't lie.

In both relative and absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more now than under any other government in history.
I do miss the bad old days of Labour, everyone had a job, 13 years of solid growth, and disabled people didn't have to pay the bedroom tax...them where the days.

It doesn't say much for the UK economy when its greatest job generator since the crash has been self employment where wages fell by 22%, With the suspicion that many of those "running their own business" are doing so involuntarily!
What a great economic recovery by the Tories food banks and soup kitchens everywhere, high street shops closing down, inflation up.
Good luck to all getting exam results today . Sorry kids there are few jobs but no worry nepotism is running strong so if you know the right people and your face fits, hey pesto.

26 Million Brits live on the breadline, Thanks to the Tories
A LOST generation of one million youngsters are now NEETs Not in Education, Employment or Training. So far our cuts have hit, Children, Students and the Disabled, I could never vote for any political party, that takes money from disabled people, while giving millionaires huge Tax Cuts

Anyone remember when silly Norman Lamont and his side kick David Cameron hiked interest rates up to 15.8%, WARNING they will do it again.

http://www.dailystar

.co.uk/news/latest-n

ews/330027/26-Millio

n-Brits-live-on-the-

breadline
>everyone had a job

The unemployment figures were the same in 1997 (when Labour came to power) and in 2010 (when the Coalition took over). In between Labour created some jobs but then mismanaged the economy and lost all of them.

Since 2012 after the Coalition's policies started to make an impact, the unemployment figures have fallen and are now approximately on a par with the figures in 2001/2002;

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/10604117

>bedroom tax

Why should the country, as a policy, pay for people to have a spare room?

I mean, I think that the bedroom tax should only be imposed if there is a suitable house for people to move to and they choose not to move (rather than as a blanket provision) but in general I think the principle of giving people what they need to survive and asking them to work for anything more is reasonable.

>Inflation up

Er, inflation started to spike in 2009, under Labour (as the recession started to bite), and was at 5% before Labour left power. The Coalition's policies took a while to deal with Labour's mismanagement of the economy but from end 2011 onwards there's been a steady drop in inflation down towards the target of 2%.

Again, look at that BBC link.

It's true, everyone has not benefited from the recovery at this point. Just as it took a few years for Labour's failure to plan for the downturn to hit the economy, it takes a while for the improvements in the economy to move through the system. The poorest are disproportionately affected by the changes.

The problem is that due to the state of the economy the Coalition were faced with a simple choice - cut and aid some people or don't cut and aid no-one. If they'd allowed the economy to continue on the course Labour left it on we would have been in the same situation as Greece or Ireland - 22% cut in minimum wage, perhaps? 60% cut in pensions? How many people would that have dropped into poverty?

The cuts have hit children, students and the disabled - but then not cutting would have hit children, students, the disabled, the elderly, jobseekers, minimum-wage workers, families...

So yes, the Tories have been in charge whilst people have been left in poverty. The Tories were in charge whilst food banks have been stretched, they were in charge whilst some high-street shops went to the wall - but the root cause of all of these was Labour's failure to prepare for the economic downturn, to fix the roof whilst the sun shone and to invest in the future rather than max out the credit cards and spend all the money whilst the economy grew.


Oh, and if you want figures for the "richest paying more" claim;

In 2013/2014 the richest 1% of the country paid 28% of the total tax revenues (and the bottom 50% paid just 9.6% of all tax revenues). In 1999 under Labour the richest 1% paid 21% of the total tax revenues (and the bottom 50% paid 12% of the total tax revenues). Which party is soft on millionaires? Doesn't look like the Tories. Which party is taxing the poorest in society? Doesn't look like the Tories...

(all figures from HMRC)
[quote][p][bold]PrivateTom10000001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PrivateTom10000001[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately a recession hits those at the bottom hardest (like me, made redundant because of the cuts). Recoveries come to those at the bottom last. It's the nature of economies. The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history, for example, but it's a long job to fix the mess Labour left. People won't forget that.[/p][/quote]"The Tories are doing what they can - taxing the rich more than any other government in history" absolutely PML hahahaha..... your so funny![/p][/quote]Do the maths. Numbers don't lie. In both relative and absolute terms, the richest in society are paying more now than under any other government in history.[/p][/quote]I do miss the bad old days of Labour, everyone had a job, 13 years of solid growth, and disabled people didn't have to pay the bedroom tax...them where the days. It doesn't say much for the UK economy when its greatest job generator since the crash has been self employment where wages fell by 22%, With the suspicion that many of those "running their own business" are doing so involuntarily! What a great economic recovery by the Tories food banks and soup kitchens everywhere, high street shops closing down, inflation up. Good luck to all getting exam results today . Sorry kids there are few jobs but no worry nepotism is running strong so if you know the right people and your face fits, hey pesto. 26 Million Brits live on the breadline, Thanks to the Tories A LOST generation of one million youngsters are now NEETs Not in Education, Employment or Training. So far our cuts have hit, Children, Students and the Disabled, I could never vote for any political party, that takes money from disabled people, while giving millionaires huge Tax Cuts Anyone remember when silly Norman Lamont and his side kick David Cameron hiked interest rates up to 15.8%, WARNING they will do it again. http://www.dailystar .co.uk/news/latest-n ews/330027/26-Millio n-Brits-live-on-the- breadline[/p][/quote]>everyone had a job The unemployment figures were the same in 1997 (when Labour came to power) and in 2010 (when the Coalition took over). In between Labour created some jobs but then mismanaged the economy and lost all of them. Since 2012 after the Coalition's policies started to make an impact, the unemployment figures have fallen and are now approximately on a par with the figures in 2001/2002; http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/10604117 >bedroom tax Why should the country, as a policy, pay for people to have a spare room? I mean, I think that the bedroom tax should only be imposed if there is a suitable house for people to move to and they choose not to move (rather than as a blanket provision) but in general I think the principle of giving people what they need to survive and asking them to work for anything more is reasonable. >Inflation up Er, inflation started to spike in 2009, under Labour (as the recession started to bite), and was at 5% before Labour left power. The Coalition's policies took a while to deal with Labour's mismanagement of the economy but from end 2011 onwards there's been a steady drop in inflation down towards the target of 2%. Again, look at that BBC link. It's true, everyone has not benefited from the recovery at this point. Just as it took a few years for Labour's failure to plan for the downturn to hit the economy, it takes a while for the improvements in the economy to move through the system. The poorest are disproportionately affected by the changes. The problem is that due to the state of the economy the Coalition were faced with a simple choice - cut and aid some people or don't cut and aid no-one. If they'd allowed the economy to continue on the course Labour left it on we would have been in the same situation as Greece or Ireland - 22% cut in minimum wage, perhaps? 60% cut in pensions? How many people would that have dropped into poverty? The cuts have hit children, students and the disabled - but then not cutting would have hit children, students, the disabled, the elderly, jobseekers, minimum-wage workers, families... So yes, the Tories have been in charge whilst people have been left in poverty. The Tories were in charge whilst food banks have been stretched, they were in charge whilst some high-street shops went to the wall - but the root cause of all of these was Labour's failure to prepare for the economic downturn, to fix the roof whilst the sun shone and to invest in the future rather than max out the credit cards and spend all the money whilst the economy grew. Oh, and if you want figures for the "richest paying more" claim; In 2013/2014 the richest 1% of the country paid 28% of the total tax revenues (and the bottom 50% paid just 9.6% of all tax revenues). In 1999 under Labour the richest 1% paid 21% of the total tax revenues (and the bottom 50% paid 12% of the total tax revenues). Which party is soft on millionaires? Doesn't look like the Tories. Which party is taxing the poorest in society? Doesn't look like the Tories... (all figures from HMRC) mkaibear1
  • Score: -2

9:31am Thu 21 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Pearly13 wrote:
I'm not sure which is worse; the rabid 'this is my politics and I'll ignore the facts' or the 'i'll just be contradictory and awkward because I am anonymous and can get away with it'.

What about the truth? I HATE politicians. However, this government ( which I do not support) inherited the worse financial situation in our history. In the week before the election, knowing there was nothing left, Gordon Brown signed off on an additional £6bn of spending he knew was unaffordable. Reckless, stupid and criminally foolhardy management of the country's finances brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. The Govt, when it took over the reins had to keep mum about the true extent of the problem to stop our borrowing costs soaring like Greece.

I HATE this Government, but letting the last mob back makes me weep with despair at the stupidity of our leaders and the mindless followings of the electorate.
>this is my politics and I'll ignore the facts
>I'll just be contradictory and awkward because I am anonymous and can get away with it


Ooh, which one am I?
[quote][p][bold]Pearly13[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure which is worse; the rabid 'this is my politics and I'll ignore the facts' or the 'i'll just be contradictory and awkward because I am anonymous and can get away with it'. What about the truth? I HATE politicians. However, this government ( which I do not support) inherited the worse financial situation in our history. In the week before the election, knowing there was nothing left, Gordon Brown signed off on an additional £6bn of spending he knew was unaffordable. Reckless, stupid and criminally foolhardy management of the country's finances brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. The Govt, when it took over the reins had to keep mum about the true extent of the problem to stop our borrowing costs soaring like Greece. I HATE this Government, but letting the last mob back makes me weep with despair at the stupidity of our leaders and the mindless followings of the electorate.[/p][/quote]>this is my politics and I'll ignore the facts >I'll just be contradictory and awkward because I am anonymous and can get away with it Ooh, which one am I? mkaibear1
  • Score: 0

9:40am Thu 21 Aug 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

jimmysmith wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
pwlldu wrote:
Labour's very good at playing the blame game.
And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation.
very well said varteg .wales is in the state its in now because of thatchers tory government .she destroyed wales and its never recovered .the tories have done nothing for wales EVER
Did she destroy the North East as well?
They are doing very well and is one of the top performing regions.
This area is similar to Wales with regard to its mining and industrial past.
The main trouble with the Welsh is the huge 'chip on their shoulder' as evidenced by the majority of commentators on this site.
We will never get out of the mire as we whinge on about Margaret Thatcher and Tory policies.
It is great having a strong Socialist tradition, but this does not move us forward.
I have almost given up with my fellow countrymen and am resigned to the fact that Wales will always be at the bottom of the pile, with no ambition to improve itself and look to the future.
If the views on here are representative of the whole of the Country, then we may as well just wallow in our own misery as you won't find any optimism here.
[quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Labour's very good at playing the blame game.[/p][/quote]And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation.[/p][/quote]very well said varteg .wales is in the state its in now because of thatchers tory government .she destroyed wales and its never recovered .the tories have done nothing for wales EVER[/p][/quote]Did she destroy the North East as well? They are doing very well and is one of the top performing regions. This area is similar to Wales with regard to its mining and industrial past. The main trouble with the Welsh is the huge 'chip on their shoulder' as evidenced by the majority of commentators on this site. We will never get out of the mire as we whinge on about Margaret Thatcher and Tory policies. It is great having a strong Socialist tradition, but this does not move us forward. I have almost given up with my fellow countrymen and am resigned to the fact that Wales will always be at the bottom of the pile, with no ambition to improve itself and look to the future. If the views on here are representative of the whole of the Country, then we may as well just wallow in our own misery as you won't find any optimism here. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 0

11:39am Thu 21 Aug 14

endthelies says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
Pearly13 wrote:
I'm not sure which is worse; the rabid 'this is my politics and I'll ignore the facts' or the 'i'll just be contradictory and awkward because I am anonymous and can get away with it'.

What about the truth? I HATE politicians. However, this government ( which I do not support) inherited the worse financial situation in our history. In the week before the election, knowing there was nothing left, Gordon Brown signed off on an additional £6bn of spending he knew was unaffordable. Reckless, stupid and criminally foolhardy management of the country's finances brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. The Govt, when it took over the reins had to keep mum about the true extent of the problem to stop our borrowing costs soaring like Greece.

I HATE this Government, but letting the last mob back makes me weep with despair at the stupidity of our leaders and the mindless followings of the electorate.
>this is my politics and I'll ignore the facts
>I'll just be contradictory and awkward because I am anonymous and can get away with it


Ooh, which one am I?
facts Have been given, by both sides of the argument. Contradictory simple means an opposite view to another. Surely that is the whole purpose of debate is it not? If we all just agree that we should all vote Tory, or all vote Labour, there would be no need for an election would there. I also hate this government. I hate them for all the suffering they are causing to thousands of people who are trying their best to make a living by cutting the help they should be receiving whilst claiming astronomical amounts of benefits themselves along with tax avoidance schemes. legal yes, morally correct, absolutely not. I'm aware this applies to all politicians though and therefore, what are we to do. Maybe let Anarchy reign. I will vote for who I want, for the reasons I believe to be important to myself and my family. Not because someone on a forum says I should. I suggest that everyone does the same.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pearly13[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure which is worse; the rabid 'this is my politics and I'll ignore the facts' or the 'i'll just be contradictory and awkward because I am anonymous and can get away with it'. What about the truth? I HATE politicians. However, this government ( which I do not support) inherited the worse financial situation in our history. In the week before the election, knowing there was nothing left, Gordon Brown signed off on an additional £6bn of spending he knew was unaffordable. Reckless, stupid and criminally foolhardy management of the country's finances brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. The Govt, when it took over the reins had to keep mum about the true extent of the problem to stop our borrowing costs soaring like Greece. I HATE this Government, but letting the last mob back makes me weep with despair at the stupidity of our leaders and the mindless followings of the electorate.[/p][/quote]>this is my politics and I'll ignore the facts >I'll just be contradictory and awkward because I am anonymous and can get away with it Ooh, which one am I?[/p][/quote]facts Have been given, by both sides of the argument. Contradictory simple means an opposite view to another. Surely that is the whole purpose of debate is it not? If we all just agree that we should all vote Tory, or all vote Labour, there would be no need for an election would there. I also hate this government. I hate them for all the suffering they are causing to thousands of people who are trying their best to make a living by cutting the help they should be receiving whilst claiming astronomical amounts of benefits themselves along with tax avoidance schemes. legal yes, morally correct, absolutely not. I'm aware this applies to all politicians though and therefore, what are we to do. Maybe let Anarchy reign. I will vote for who I want, for the reasons I believe to be important to myself and my family. Not because someone on a forum says I should. I suggest that everyone does the same. endthelies
  • Score: 1

11:50am Thu 21 Aug 14

endthelies says...

Cymru Am Beth wrote:
jimmysmith wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
pwlldu wrote:
Labour's very good at playing the blame game.
And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation.
very well said varteg .wales is in the state its in now because of thatchers tory government .she destroyed wales and its never recovered .the tories have done nothing for wales EVER
Did she destroy the North East as well?
They are doing very well and is one of the top performing regions.
This area is similar to Wales with regard to its mining and industrial past.
The main trouble with the Welsh is the huge 'chip on their shoulder' as evidenced by the majority of commentators on this site.
We will never get out of the mire as we whinge on about Margaret Thatcher and Tory policies.
It is great having a strong Socialist tradition, but this does not move us forward.
I have almost given up with my fellow countrymen and am resigned to the fact that Wales will always be at the bottom of the pile, with no ambition to improve itself and look to the future.
If the views on here are representative of the whole of the Country, then we may as well just wallow in our own misery as you won't find any optimism here.
Cymru what stats do you have to suggest that ALL the northeast is doing well. That's a little random really because the 'northeast' could be anywhere. But anyway heres a report that shows the only place in the country to have seen unemployment RISE, is, yep you've guessed it, the Northeast. :)
http://www.chronicle
live.co.uk/news/nort
h-east-news/north-ea
st-unemployment-rise
s-again-7117305
[quote][p][bold]Cymru Am Beth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Labour's very good at playing the blame game.[/p][/quote]And also the Tory supporters, are very very good at ignoring the bits that don't suit them, and are also very very good at obfuscation.[/p][/quote]very well said varteg .wales is in the state its in now because of thatchers tory government .she destroyed wales and its never recovered .the tories have done nothing for wales EVER[/p][/quote]Did she destroy the North East as well? They are doing very well and is one of the top performing regions. This area is similar to Wales with regard to its mining and industrial past. The main trouble with the Welsh is the huge 'chip on their shoulder' as evidenced by the majority of commentators on this site. We will never get out of the mire as we whinge on about Margaret Thatcher and Tory policies. It is great having a strong Socialist tradition, but this does not move us forward. I have almost given up with my fellow countrymen and am resigned to the fact that Wales will always be at the bottom of the pile, with no ambition to improve itself and look to the future. If the views on here are representative of the whole of the Country, then we may as well just wallow in our own misery as you won't find any optimism here.[/p][/quote]Cymru what stats do you have to suggest that ALL the northeast is doing well. That's a little random really because the 'northeast' could be anywhere. But anyway heres a report that shows the only place in the country to have seen unemployment RISE, is, yep you've guessed it, the Northeast. :) http://www.chronicle live.co.uk/news/nort h-east-news/north-ea st-unemployment-rise s-again-7117305 endthelies
  • Score: 2

11:55am Thu 21 Aug 14

endthelies says...

and here again the jobless total in the northeast went from 15,000 to, wait for it........ 1,206,000. I bet they can't wait to vote Tory.


http://www.chronicle
live.co.uk/news/nort
h-east-news/north-ea
st-unemployment-rise
s-again-7117305
and here again the jobless total in the northeast went from 15,000 to, wait for it........ 1,206,000. I bet they can't wait to vote Tory. http://www.chronicle live.co.uk/news/nort h-east-news/north-ea st-unemployment-rise s-again-7117305 endthelies
  • Score: 2

8:29pm Thu 21 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Am tempted to remind the letter writer that there probably wouldn't be any public services if it wasn't for us 'misguided lefties', but that's besides the point.

Remind me which government sold our Royal Mail off on the cheap (costing the taxpayer billions in the process), has slashed the number of police, firemen, nurses, GP's & social workers and trebled the use of Food Bank users? Perhaps the millions of people who are unhappy with the Con-Dem government are on to something...

History has shown us that you can never trust the tories.
Strange that almost as soon as Royal Mail left public ownership, a whole vast fleet of brand new vehicles flooded the area, all bearing the RM logo.

It was absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for4 the new owners to have placed orders for that new fleet in so short a time between buying the company and ordering it.

The only conclusion being, the State, as owner, ordered the new fleet, full in the knowledge it would be handed to the new owners as soon as they took over, or to put it more precisely, we the taxpayers were SHAFTED.
On top of that, the company was sold short as reported by all the City
analysts.

The stated sum of approx. 1 billion lost tom the taxpayer I suggest does not include the cost of that new fleet of vehicles, so handily ordered prior ton the sale. and so readily accepted by the new owners.
[quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: Am tempted to remind the letter writer that there probably wouldn't be any public services if it wasn't for us 'misguided lefties', but that's besides the point. Remind me which government sold our Royal Mail off on the cheap (costing the taxpayer billions in the process), has slashed the number of police, firemen, nurses, GP's & social workers and trebled the use of Food Bank users? Perhaps the millions of people who are unhappy with the Con-Dem government are on to something... History has shown us that you can never trust the tories.[/p][/quote]Strange that almost as soon as Royal Mail left public ownership, a whole vast fleet of brand new vehicles flooded the area, all bearing the RM logo. It was absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for4 the new owners to have placed orders for that new fleet in so short a time between buying the company and ordering it. The only conclusion being, the State, as owner, ordered the new fleet, full in the knowledge it would be handed to the new owners as soon as they took over, or to put it more precisely, we the taxpayers were SHAFTED. On top of that, the company was sold short as reported by all the City analysts. The stated sum of approx. 1 billion lost tom the taxpayer I suggest does not include the cost of that new fleet of vehicles, so handily ordered prior ton the sale. and so readily accepted by the new owners. varteg1
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree