This whole Grant Shapps story is based on the word of one volunteer administrator. Hardly compelling evidence.
Er, no, it's the IP addresses that are consistent with those of his office as discovered by a Wikipedia investigation.
Is Grant Shapps the only person in his office?
I don't think the Chairman of any political party is stupid enough to edit their own Wikipedia entry from their own office, especially weeks before an election. As Shapps has been stung on this before, he's definitely smart enough to know not to do this.
Oh come on. You really are so biased it's embarrassing. This blokes been caught lying already and now this. What's worse is that Cameron is sticking by him. You couldn't make it up. Lol.
He wasn't lying Shooters, he was "over firmly denying" IIRC.
I'm going to try that the next time my missus accuses me of nicking the last Hobnob.
Fiish - you have plummeted new depths in your defence of Mr Shapps/Green/theothernameheused. Any good points you make, are for me ruined by your need to slavishly follow Conservative Central Office dictate.
Sometimes less is more (comment wise).
I guess you missed my post lambasting the Tory housing policy. The rest of your post and the posts of the Miliband fan club above are largely invalid or without merit.
"Lambasting"? You pointed out you were not in favour of it but that's putting it a bit strong...and it is the only time you have ever posted something negative about the Tories. You simply cannot adopt a position where you present yourself to be unbiased and take an objective view based on the available facts and evidence available when in other threads you have referred to the whole of the Labour party as "The Scum".
For starters we all know the scum play in blue ;-)
Fiish - you have plummeted new depths in your defence of Mr Shapps/Green/theothernameheused. Any good points you make, are for me ruined by your need to slavishly follow Conservative Central Office dictate.
Sometimes less is more (comment wise).
I guess you missed my post lambasting the Tory housing policy. The rest of your post and the posts of the Miliband fan club above are largely invalid or without merit.
Even most Tories have been hard pressed to have a good word to say about the new "right-to-buy". The merit in my post is that you constantly defend the indefensible which detracts from the ever shrinking good posts that you make.
And before you bleat about fan clubs, I voted for the government in 2010 and won't be voting Labour this time. I just happen to like fairness and evidence.
This is where you fall down Fiiish. You don't explain why this is not a good approach or where the Conservatives have a better one, you just dismiss it. It is probably as trustworthy a source as you can get -from the horse's mouth as it were- will it help small business? - question that by all means, but don't make the debate a pantomime.
Fiish - you have plummeted new depths in your defence of Mr Shapps/Green/theothernameheused. Any good points you make, are for me ruined by your need to slavishly follow Conservative Central Office dictate.
Sometimes less is more (comment wise).
I guess you missed my post lambasting the Tory housing policy. The rest of your post and the posts of the Miliband fan club above are largely invalid or without merit.
Even most Tories have been hard pressed to have a good word to say about the new "right-to-buy". The merit in my post is that you constantly defend the indefensible which detracts from the ever shrinking good posts that you make.
I didn't defend the indefensible, I just find it funny that the usual suspects have jumped on an anti-Tory story for which the evidence is, at the moment, threadbare. Not even Wikipedia are saying it is Shapps, just that it could be.
Where else have I supposedly defended the indefensible?
This is where you fall down Fiiish. You don't explain why this is not a good approach or where the Conservatives have a better one, you just dismiss it. It is probably as trustworthy a source as you can get -from the horse's mouth as it were- will it help small business? - question that by all means, but don't make the debate a pantomime.
You're not Michael Green are you?
No, but the problem isn't Labour's policies, it's the fact that me and the others who doubt Labour's promises to small businesses do so because Labour have a track record of breaking their manifesto pledges, so quoting their manifesto in an attempt to woo us isn't really going to work.
They are saying it was done using the same IP address that was used to update wiki in the past under a different username - Where it is known and not denied it was Schapps. That narrows down where it comes from as each computer or printer on a network will have its own IP address. So we know it was done on his computer, but it could of course have been any of us that actually did it!!!!! Or some mysterious unnamed administrator. If he sues after the election, I'll eat my laptop and its IP address with it! A lot of people think using a different password won't identify you, but your IP address won't change.
Do you know what? I think it's unfair to have a go at Grant Shapps. I know there are a lot of accusations about him, involving lying, having multiple identities, selling a rotten internet content product, etc, etc, etc. So I did some digging to get to the truth.
I checked Wikipedia and found out a few facts I didn't know about him. He was born in 1968. He's actually the CO-Chair (not Chair) of the Conservatives (with Lord Feldman of Elstree). He's Jewish. He's been an MP for ten years. He's a writer. He's an entrepreneur. He's raised over £12m for various charities. He runs a taxi business in his home town of Watford, where he is also deputy Mayor. He sang backing vocals on the Live Aid 2008 single. He's slightly magnetic. He invented mathematics, the washing machine and sunlight. He can bench-press his own bodyweight in gold - and often does. And when he winks at hedgehogs, they roll up on his lawn and collect fallen leaves.
This is where you fall down Fiiish. You don't explain why this is not a good approach or where the Conservatives have a better one, you just dismiss it. It is probably as trustworthy a source as you can get -from the horse's mouth as it were- will it help small business? - question that by all means, but don't make the debate a pantomime.
You're not Michael Green are you?
No, but the problem isn't Labour's policies, it's the fact that me and the others who doubt Labour's promises to small businesses do so because Labour have a track record of breaking their manifesto pledges, so quoting their manifesto in an attempt to woo us isn't really going to work.
Broken promises eh?
‘We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT.’ Mr Cameron made this pledge during a grilling from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, adding: “Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.” George Osborne announced in his very first budget that he would raised VAT from 17.5 to 20 per cent.
‘I’m not going to flannel you, I’m going to give it to you straight… I like the child benefit, I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means-test it, I don’t think that is a good idea'. Another unfortunate choice of words, in retrospect – this time from a “Cameron Direct” question-and-answer session the future prime minister did in March 2010. In 2013 means-testing of child benefit kicked in, with a reduced benefit for households with one parent earning more than £50,000 a year. The change was predicted to affect about a million families.
‘We’ve looked at educational maintenance allowances and we haven’t announced any plan to get rid of them. We don’t have any plans to get rid of them. It’s one of the plans the Labour party keep putting out, but we’re not.’ Mr Cameron was answering a question on the future of the educational maintenance allowance (EMA) at a question-and-answer event in January 2010 The person asking the question here – Save EMA campaign director James Mills (now a Labour party staffer) – sensed Mr Cameron was lukewarm on the allowance and pushed him, asking: “Do you support it?” and: “Is that a yes?” The Conservative leader eventually replied: “That is a yes”. A month before the election the future Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said: “Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.” The EMA, a grant paid to the poorest 16 to 19-year-olds in further education, was of course scrapped after the election.
‘There will be no more of those pointless reorganisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos.’ The big one. These words were greeted with a round of applause when Mr Cameron made this speech at the Royal College of Nursing in 2009. In 2011 delegates at the college’s annual conference overwhelmingly backed a motion of no confidence questioning Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s reforms to the NHS. The move to replace primary care trusts with GP-led commissioning groups and increase the role of private providers has been described as the biggest reorganisation of the NHS in its history. But before the last election, Mr Cameron had been adamant there would be no big surprises in store for NHS workers. In another speech in 2009 he said: “We are committed to the status quo. It’s true, with the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
So are you saying that there was a global financial crisis rather than a national financial crisis?
Yes, that is correct.
Would you then say that therefore the last government was not responsible for the financial crisis?
Totally blameless. They were just brilliant.
(Just dont read this blog from that old right winger, Sean Thomas in the Telegraph ''Labour 1997 - 2010 was the Worst Government Ever.'')
This is where you fall down Fiiish. You don't explain why this is not a good approach or where the Conservatives have a better one, you just dismiss it. It is probably as trustworthy a source as you can get -from the horse's mouth as it were- will it help small business? - question that by all means, but don't make the debate a pantomime.
You're not Michael Green are you?
No, but the problem isn't Labour's policies, it's the fact that me and the others who doubt Labour's promises to small businesses do so because Labour have a track record of breaking their manifesto pledges, so quoting their manifesto in an attempt to woo us isn't really going to work.
Broken promises eh?
‘We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT.’ Mr Cameron made this pledge during a grilling from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, adding: “Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.” George Osborne announced in his very first budget that he would raised VAT from 17.5 to 20 per cent.
‘I’m not going to flannel you, I’m going to give it to you straight… I like the child benefit, I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means-test it, I don’t think that is a good idea'. Another unfortunate choice of words, in retrospect – this time from a “Cameron Direct” question-and-answer session the future prime minister did in March 2010. In 2013 means-testing of child benefit kicked in, with a reduced benefit for households with one parent earning more than £50,000 a year. The change was predicted to affect about a million families.
‘We’ve looked at educational maintenance allowances and we haven’t announced any plan to get rid of them. We don’t have any plans to get rid of them. It’s one of the plans the Labour party keep putting out, but we’re not.’ Mr Cameron was answering a question on the future of the educational maintenance allowance (EMA) at a question-and-answer event in January 2010 The person asking the question here – Save EMA campaign director James Mills (now a Labour party staffer) – sensed Mr Cameron was lukewarm on the allowance and pushed him, asking: “Do you support it?” and: “Is that a yes?” The Conservative leader eventually replied: “That is a yes”. A month before the election the future Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said: “Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.” The EMA, a grant paid to the poorest 16 to 19-year-olds in further education, was of course scrapped after the election.
‘There will be no more of those pointless reorganisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos.’ The big one. These words were greeted with a round of applause when Mr Cameron made this speech at the Royal College of Nursing in 2009. In 2011 delegates at the college’s annual conference overwhelmingly backed a motion of no confidence questioning Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s reforms to the NHS. The move to replace primary care trusts with GP-led commissioning groups and increase the role of private providers has been described as the biggest reorganisation of the NHS in its history. But before the last election, Mr Cameron had been adamant there would be no big surprises in store for NHS workers. In another speech in 2009 he said: “We are committed to the status quo. It’s true, with the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
There are more - should I go on? All politicians break promises - it's one of the key attributes of a politician.
As I have asserted I'm not in the business of defending the Tories, my point was that the Labour manifesto is not a trustworthy source to use if you're trying to assert Labour's pro small-business credentials.
This is where you fall down Fiiish. You don't explain why this is not a good approach or where the Conservatives have a better one, you just dismiss it. It is probably as trustworthy a source as you can get -from the horse's mouth as it were- will it help small business? - question that by all means, but don't make the debate a pantomime.
You're not Michael Green are you?
No, but the problem isn't Labour's policies, it's the fact that me and the others who doubt Labour's promises to small businesses do so because Labour have a track record of breaking their manifesto pledges, so quoting their manifesto in an attempt to woo us isn't really going to work.
Broken promises eh?
‘We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT.’ Mr Cameron made this pledge during a grilling from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, adding: “Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.” George Osborne announced in his very first budget that he would raised VAT from 17.5 to 20 per cent.
‘I’m not going to flannel you, I’m going to give it to you straight… I like the child benefit, I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means-test it, I don’t think that is a good idea'. Another unfortunate choice of words, in retrospect – this time from a “Cameron Direct” question-and-answer session the future prime minister did in March 2010. In 2013 means-testing of child benefit kicked in, with a reduced benefit for households with one parent earning more than £50,000 a year. The change was predicted to affect about a million families.
‘We’ve looked at educational maintenance allowances and we haven’t announced any plan to get rid of them. We don’t have any plans to get rid of them. It’s one of the plans the Labour party keep putting out, but we’re not.’ Mr Cameron was answering a question on the future of the educational maintenance allowance (EMA) at a question-and-answer event in January 2010 The person asking the question here – Save EMA campaign director James Mills (now a Labour party staffer) – sensed Mr Cameron was lukewarm on the allowance and pushed him, asking: “Do you support it?” and: “Is that a yes?” The Conservative leader eventually replied: “That is a yes”. A month before the election the future Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said: “Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.” The EMA, a grant paid to the poorest 16 to 19-year-olds in further education, was of course scrapped after the election.
‘There will be no more of those pointless reorganisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos.’ The big one. These words were greeted with a round of applause when Mr Cameron made this speech at the Royal College of Nursing in 2009. In 2011 delegates at the college’s annual conference overwhelmingly backed a motion of no confidence questioning Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s reforms to the NHS. The move to replace primary care trusts with GP-led commissioning groups and increase the role of private providers has been described as the biggest reorganisation of the NHS in its history. But before the last election, Mr Cameron had been adamant there would be no big surprises in store for NHS workers. In another speech in 2009 he said: “We are committed to the status quo. It’s true, with the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
There are more - should I go on? All politicians break promises - it's one of the key attributes of a politician.
As I have asserted I'm not in the business of defending the Tories, my point was that the Labour manifesto is not a trustworthy source to use if you're trying to assert Labour's pro small-business credentials.
And my point is - neither is the fecking tories!
What was it someone else said on this thread? - 'defending the indefensible' or something like that. You are really not doing yourself any favours old chap.
This thread is LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG
This is where you fall down Fiiish. You don't explain why this is not a good approach or where the Conservatives have a better one, you just dismiss it. It is probably as trustworthy a source as you can get -from the horse's mouth as it were- will it help small business? - question that by all means, but don't make the debate a pantomime.
You're not Michael Green are you?
No, but the problem isn't Labour's policies, it's the fact that me and the others who doubt Labour's promises to small businesses do so because Labour have a track record of breaking their manifesto pledges, so quoting their manifesto in an attempt to woo us isn't really going to work.
Broken promises eh?
‘We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT.’ Mr Cameron made this pledge during a grilling from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, adding: “Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.” George Osborne announced in his very first budget that he would raised VAT from 17.5 to 20 per cent.
‘I’m not going to flannel you, I’m going to give it to you straight… I like the child benefit, I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means-test it, I don’t think that is a good idea'. Another unfortunate choice of words, in retrospect – this time from a “Cameron Direct” question-and-answer session the future prime minister did in March 2010. In 2013 means-testing of child benefit kicked in, with a reduced benefit for households with one parent earning more than £50,000 a year. The change was predicted to affect about a million families.
‘We’ve looked at educational maintenance allowances and we haven’t announced any plan to get rid of them. We don’t have any plans to get rid of them. It’s one of the plans the Labour party keep putting out, but we’re not.’ Mr Cameron was answering a question on the future of the educational maintenance allowance (EMA) at a question-and-answer event in January 2010 The person asking the question here – Save EMA campaign director James Mills (now a Labour party staffer) – sensed Mr Cameron was lukewarm on the allowance and pushed him, asking: “Do you support it?” and: “Is that a yes?” The Conservative leader eventually replied: “That is a yes”. A month before the election the future Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said: “Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.” The EMA, a grant paid to the poorest 16 to 19-year-olds in further education, was of course scrapped after the election.
‘There will be no more of those pointless reorganisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos.’ The big one. These words were greeted with a round of applause when Mr Cameron made this speech at the Royal College of Nursing in 2009. In 2011 delegates at the college’s annual conference overwhelmingly backed a motion of no confidence questioning Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s reforms to the NHS. The move to replace primary care trusts with GP-led commissioning groups and increase the role of private providers has been described as the biggest reorganisation of the NHS in its history. But before the last election, Mr Cameron had been adamant there would be no big surprises in store for NHS workers. In another speech in 2009 he said: “We are committed to the status quo. It’s true, with the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
There are more - should I go on? All politicians break promises - it's one of the key attributes of a politician.
As I have asserted I'm not in the business of defending the Tories, my point was that the Labour manifesto is not a trustworthy source to use if you're trying to assert Labour's pro small-business credentials.
And my point is - neither is the fecking tories!
What was it someone else said on this thread? - 'defending the indefensible' or something like that. You are really not doing yourself any favours old chap.
Sorry but what is indefensible about saying 'the Labour manifesto isn't trustworthy'?
This is where you fall down Fiiish. You don't explain why this is not a good approach or where the Conservatives have a better one, you just dismiss it. It is probably as trustworthy a source as you can get -from the horse's mouth as it were- will it help small business? - question that by all means, but don't make the debate a pantomime.
You're not Michael Green are you?
No, but the problem isn't Labour's policies, it's the fact that me and the others who doubt Labour's promises to small businesses do so because Labour have a track record of breaking their manifesto pledges, so quoting their manifesto in an attempt to woo us isn't really going to work.
Broken promises eh?
‘We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT.’ Mr Cameron made this pledge during a grilling from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, adding: “Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.” George Osborne announced in his very first budget that he would raised VAT from 17.5 to 20 per cent.
‘I’m not going to flannel you, I’m going to give it to you straight… I like the child benefit, I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means-test it, I don’t think that is a good idea'. Another unfortunate choice of words, in retrospect – this time from a “Cameron Direct” question-and-answer session the future prime minister did in March 2010. In 2013 means-testing of child benefit kicked in, with a reduced benefit for households with one parent earning more than £50,000 a year. The change was predicted to affect about a million families.
‘We’ve looked at educational maintenance allowances and we haven’t announced any plan to get rid of them. We don’t have any plans to get rid of them. It’s one of the plans the Labour party keep putting out, but we’re not.’ Mr Cameron was answering a question on the future of the educational maintenance allowance (EMA) at a question-and-answer event in January 2010 The person asking the question here – Save EMA campaign director James Mills (now a Labour party staffer) – sensed Mr Cameron was lukewarm on the allowance and pushed him, asking: “Do you support it?” and: “Is that a yes?” The Conservative leader eventually replied: “That is a yes”. A month before the election the future Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said: “Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.” The EMA, a grant paid to the poorest 16 to 19-year-olds in further education, was of course scrapped after the election.
‘There will be no more of those pointless reorganisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos.’ The big one. These words were greeted with a round of applause when Mr Cameron made this speech at the Royal College of Nursing in 2009. In 2011 delegates at the college’s annual conference overwhelmingly backed a motion of no confidence questioning Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s reforms to the NHS. The move to replace primary care trusts with GP-led commissioning groups and increase the role of private providers has been described as the biggest reorganisation of the NHS in its history. But before the last election, Mr Cameron had been adamant there would be no big surprises in store for NHS workers. In another speech in 2009 he said: “We are committed to the status quo. It’s true, with the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
There are more - should I go on? All politicians break promises - it's one of the key attributes of a politician.
As I have asserted I'm not in the business of defending the Tories, my point was that the Labour manifesto is not a trustworthy source to use if you're trying to assert Labour's pro small-business credentials.
And my point is - neither is the fecking tories!
What was it someone else said on this thread? - 'defending the indefensible' or something like that. You are really not doing yourself any favours old chap.
Sorry but what is indefensible about saying 'the Labour manifesto isn't trustworthy'?
I'll let others comment on your abundant objectivity.
This is where you fall down Fiiish. You don't explain why this is not a good approach or where the Conservatives have a better one, you just dismiss it. It is probably as trustworthy a source as you can get -from the horse's mouth as it were- will it help small business? - question that by all means, but don't make the debate a pantomime.
You're not Michael Green are you?
No, but the problem isn't Labour's policies, it's the fact that me and the others who doubt Labour's promises to small businesses do so because Labour have a track record of breaking their manifesto pledges, so quoting their manifesto in an attempt to woo us isn't really going to work.
Broken promises eh?
‘We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT.’ Mr Cameron made this pledge during a grilling from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, adding: “Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.” George Osborne announced in his very first budget that he would raised VAT from 17.5 to 20 per cent.
‘I’m not going to flannel you, I’m going to give it to you straight… I like the child benefit, I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means-test it, I don’t think that is a good idea'. Another unfortunate choice of words, in retrospect – this time from a “Cameron Direct” question-and-answer session the future prime minister did in March 2010. In 2013 means-testing of child benefit kicked in, with a reduced benefit for households with one parent earning more than £50,000 a year. The change was predicted to affect about a million families.
‘We’ve looked at educational maintenance allowances and we haven’t announced any plan to get rid of them. We don’t have any plans to get rid of them. It’s one of the plans the Labour party keep putting out, but we’re not.’ Mr Cameron was answering a question on the future of the educational maintenance allowance (EMA) at a question-and-answer event in January 2010 The person asking the question here – Save EMA campaign director James Mills (now a Labour party staffer) – sensed Mr Cameron was lukewarm on the allowance and pushed him, asking: “Do you support it?” and: “Is that a yes?” The Conservative leader eventually replied: “That is a yes”. A month before the election the future Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said: “Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.” The EMA, a grant paid to the poorest 16 to 19-year-olds in further education, was of course scrapped after the election.
‘There will be no more of those pointless reorganisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos.’ The big one. These words were greeted with a round of applause when Mr Cameron made this speech at the Royal College of Nursing in 2009. In 2011 delegates at the college’s annual conference overwhelmingly backed a motion of no confidence questioning Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s reforms to the NHS. The move to replace primary care trusts with GP-led commissioning groups and increase the role of private providers has been described as the biggest reorganisation of the NHS in its history. But before the last election, Mr Cameron had been adamant there would be no big surprises in store for NHS workers. In another speech in 2009 he said: “We are committed to the status quo. It’s true, with the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
There are more - should I go on? All politicians break promises - it's one of the key attributes of a politician.
As I have asserted I'm not in the business of defending the Tories, my point was that the Labour manifesto is not a trustworthy source to use if you're trying to assert Labour's pro small-business credentials.
And my point is - neither is the fecking tories!
What was it someone else said on this thread? - 'defending the indefensible' or something like that. You are really not doing yourself any favours old chap.
Sorry but what is indefensible about saying 'the Labour manifesto isn't trustworthy'?
I'll let others comment on your abundant objectivity.
Others have, except none of them have managed to cite any relevant evidence whatsoever so really they're in no position to comment on my objectivity.
This is where you fall down Fiiish. You don't explain why this is not a good approach or where the Conservatives have a better one, you just dismiss it. It is probably as trustworthy a source as you can get -from the horse's mouth as it were- will it help small business? - question that by all means, but don't make the debate a pantomime.
You're not Michael Green are you?
No, but the problem isn't Labour's policies, it's the fact that me and the others who doubt Labour's promises to small businesses do so because Labour have a track record of breaking their manifesto pledges, so quoting their manifesto in an attempt to woo us isn't really going to work.
Broken promises eh?
‘We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT.’ Mr Cameron made this pledge during a grilling from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, adding: “Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.” George Osborne announced in his very first budget that he would raised VAT from 17.5 to 20 per cent.
‘I’m not going to flannel you, I’m going to give it to you straight… I like the child benefit, I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means-test it, I don’t think that is a good idea'. Another unfortunate choice of words, in retrospect – this time from a “Cameron Direct” question-and-answer session the future prime minister did in March 2010. In 2013 means-testing of child benefit kicked in, with a reduced benefit for households with one parent earning more than £50,000 a year. The change was predicted to affect about a million families.
‘We’ve looked at educational maintenance allowances and we haven’t announced any plan to get rid of them. We don’t have any plans to get rid of them. It’s one of the plans the Labour party keep putting out, but we’re not.’ Mr Cameron was answering a question on the future of the educational maintenance allowance (EMA) at a question-and-answer event in January 2010 The person asking the question here – Save EMA campaign director James Mills (now a Labour party staffer) – sensed Mr Cameron was lukewarm on the allowance and pushed him, asking: “Do you support it?” and: “Is that a yes?” The Conservative leader eventually replied: “That is a yes”. A month before the election the future Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said: “Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.” The EMA, a grant paid to the poorest 16 to 19-year-olds in further education, was of course scrapped after the election.
‘There will be no more of those pointless reorganisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos.’ The big one. These words were greeted with a round of applause when Mr Cameron made this speech at the Royal College of Nursing in 2009. In 2011 delegates at the college’s annual conference overwhelmingly backed a motion of no confidence questioning Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s reforms to the NHS. The move to replace primary care trusts with GP-led commissioning groups and increase the role of private providers has been described as the biggest reorganisation of the NHS in its history. But before the last election, Mr Cameron had been adamant there would be no big surprises in store for NHS workers. In another speech in 2009 he said: “We are committed to the status quo. It’s true, with the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
There are more - should I go on? All politicians break promises - it's one of the key attributes of a politician.
As I have asserted I'm not in the business of defending the Tories, my point was that the Labour manifesto is not a trustworthy source to use if you're trying to assert Labour's pro small-business credentials.
And my point is - neither is the fecking tories!
What was it someone else said on this thread? - 'defending the indefensible' or something like that. You are really not doing yourself any favours old chap.
Sorry but what is indefensible about saying 'the Labour manifesto isn't trustworthy'?
Cos Owen jones told me it's trustworthy.
"No more boom and bust", 11 years of boom later a massive bust hits. Nice trustworthy labour there!
Sorry I just don't buy the labour is for small businesses or people who work full stop, I know others don't agree but that's how I feel
That feeling is born from years of watching and paying towards lazy bstds who just take take take and them give give give
Anywayzzzz...moving on from everyone fiiishing for a barnie and getting back to the issues, you've mentioned several times NLA that you feel Labour encourage long term unemployment through their approach to benefits.
It would be logical to find then that there are significant differences in the figures around the total number of long term unemployed reflecting this. In fact the figures show that under the last Labour government the long term jobless didn't really start shooting up until the financial crisis started impacting.
It has come down from these levels since of course.
Sorry I just don't buy the labour is for small businesses or people who work full stop, I know others don't agree but that's how I feel
That feeling is born from years of watching and paying towards lazy bstds who just take take take and them give give give
Anywayzzzz...moving on from everyone fiiishing for a barnie and getting back to the issues, you've mentioned several times NLA that you feel Labour encourage long term unemployment through their approach to benefits.
It would be logical to find then that there are significant differences in the figures around the total number of long term unemployed reflecting this. In fact the figures show that under the last Labour government the long term jobless didn't really start shooting up until the financial crisis started impacting.
It has come down from these levels since of course.
It's good to see this because you never read about the benefit claimants who decide to go into work even though it means they will have less money as their wage will not replace their benefits, you always hear about the guy who abuses the system and this is why people have the perception that we as a country are 'soft' on benefits claimants, and that this problem is largely attributed to being Labour's fault because of their stance on the welfare state and that the press got more aggressive about this 'issue' during Labour's 13-year tenure. As the chart shows, this type of claimant (i.e. long-term unemployed who actively refuses to seek work) was not a growing problem under Labour. The bad examples that get published in the press gave the rest of those on benefits a bad name. Likewise with benefits tourism, which gets over-reported but really isn't costing this country that much at all.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
So are you saying that there was a global financial crisis rather than a national financial crisis?
Yes, that is correct.
Would you then say that therefore the last government was not responsible for the financial crisis?
Totally blameless. They were just brilliant.
(Just dont read this blog from that old right winger, Sean Thomas in the Telegraph ''Labour 1997 - 2010 was the Worst Government Ever.'')
Wow you have got me there. Nothing like unbiased incontrovertible proof to win an argument.
And of course this "article" is nothing like unbiased incontrovertible proof.
No, you don't say! Oh yes that's right, I didn't say it was unbiased incontrovertible proof. But I did say I did say you shouldn't read it.
Anyway back to Blairs policy of uncontrolled immigration. Any after effects from that?
:-)
Why would that be of any interest to me. I am not defending or attacking it. Just pulling some random belief out of your arse does not make your original assertion true.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
So are you saying that there was a global financial crisis rather than a national financial crisis?
Yes, that is correct.
Would you then say that therefore the last government was not responsible for the financial crisis?
Totally blameless. They were just brilliant.
(Just dont read this blog from that old right winger, Sean Thomas in the Telegraph ''Labour 1997 - 2010 was the Worst Government Ever.'')
Wow you have got me there. Nothing like unbiased incontrovertible proof to win an argument.
And of course this "article" is nothing like unbiased incontrovertible proof.
Anyway back to Blairs policy of uncontrolled immigration. Any after effects from that?
:-)
This was the final nail in the coffin between Labour and me. Absolutely unforgivable and will have large damaging effect on this country for decades to come IMO.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
So are you saying that there was a global financial crisis rather than a national financial crisis?
Yes, that is correct.
Would you then say that therefore the last government was not responsible for the financial crisis?
Totally blameless. They were just brilliant.
(Just dont read this blog from that old right winger, Sean Thomas in the Telegraph ''Labour 1997 - 2010 was the Worst Government Ever.'')
Wow you have got me there. Nothing like unbiased incontrovertible proof to win an argument.
And of course this "article" is nothing like unbiased incontrovertible proof.
Anyway back to Blairs policy of uncontrolled immigration. Any after effects from that?
:-)
This was the final nail in the coffin between Labour and me. Absolutely unforgivable and will have large damaging effect on this country for decades to come IMO.
So will you be voting for the Tories or LibDem whose policy was identical in government both before and subsequent to the last Labour government; or Ukip, who have a clear, declared alternative policy on immigration and no idea, plans or expertise in any other area?
Comments
I'm going to try that the next time my missus accuses me of nicking the last Hobnob.
That feeling is born from years of watching and paying towards lazy bstds who just take take take and them give give give
For starters we all know the scum play in blue ;-)
And before you bleat about fan clubs, I voted for the government in 2010 and won't be voting Labour this time. I just happen to like fairness and evidence.
You're not Michael Green are you?
Where else have I supposedly defended the indefensible?
It is one of the ways the Police catch Peados.
I checked Wikipedia and found out a few facts I didn't know about him. He was born in 1968. He's actually the CO-Chair (not Chair) of the Conservatives (with Lord Feldman of Elstree). He's Jewish. He's been an MP for ten years. He's a writer. He's an entrepreneur. He's raised over £12m for various charities. He runs a taxi business in his home town of Watford, where he is also deputy Mayor. He sang backing vocals on the Live Aid 2008 single. He's slightly magnetic. He invented mathematics, the washing machine and sunlight. He can bench-press his own bodyweight in gold - and often does. And when he winks at hedgehogs, they roll up on his lawn and collect fallen leaves.
‘We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT.’
Mr Cameron made this pledge during a grilling from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, adding: “Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.”
George Osborne announced in his very first budget that he would raised VAT from 17.5 to 20 per cent.
‘I’m not going to flannel you, I’m going to give it to you straight… I like the child benefit, I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means-test it, I don’t think that is a good idea'.
Another unfortunate choice of words, in retrospect – this time from a “Cameron Direct” question-and-answer session the future prime minister did in March 2010.
In 2013 means-testing of child benefit kicked in, with a reduced benefit for households with one parent earning more than £50,000 a year. The change was predicted to affect about a million families.
‘We’ve looked at educational maintenance allowances and we haven’t announced any plan to get rid of them. We don’t have any plans to get rid of them. It’s one of the plans the Labour party keep putting out, but we’re not.’
Mr Cameron was answering a question on the future of the educational maintenance allowance (EMA) at a question-and-answer event in January 2010
The person asking the question here – Save EMA campaign director James Mills (now a Labour party staffer) – sensed Mr Cameron was lukewarm on the allowance and pushed him, asking: “Do you support it?” and: “Is that a yes?” The Conservative leader eventually replied: “That is a yes”.
A month before the election the future Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said: “Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.”
The EMA, a grant paid to the poorest 16 to 19-year-olds in further education, was of course scrapped after the election.
‘There will be no more of those pointless reorganisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos.’
The big one. These words were greeted with a round of applause when Mr Cameron made this speech at the Royal College of Nursing in 2009.
In 2011 delegates at the college’s annual conference overwhelmingly backed a motion of no confidence questioning Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s reforms to the NHS.
The move to replace primary care trusts with GP-led commissioning groups and increase the role of private providers has been described as the biggest reorganisation of the NHS in its history.
But before the last election, Mr Cameron had been adamant there would be no big surprises in store for NHS workers.
In another speech in 2009 he said: “We are committed to the status quo. It’s true, with the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10447707/Conservatives-wipe-all-pre-election-pledges-from-their-website.html
There are more - should I go on? All politicians break promises - it's one of the key attributes of a politician.
But I did say
I did say you shouldn't read it.
Anyway back to Blairs policy of uncontrolled immigration. Any after effects from that?
:-)
What was it someone else said on this thread? - 'defending the indefensible' or something like that. You are really not doing yourself any favours old chap.
https://www.facebook.com/politicalbible/videos/385385058318240/
"No more boom and bust", 11 years of boom later a massive bust hits. Nice trustworthy labour there!
It would be logical to find then that there are significant differences in the figures around the total number of long term unemployed reflecting this. In fact the figures show that under the last Labour government the long term jobless didn't really start shooting up until the financial crisis started impacting.
It has come down from these levels since of course.
Why would that be of any interest to me. I am not defending or attacking it. Just pulling some random belief out of your arse does not make your original assertion true.
Therefore it has no bearing on whether or not the financial crisis was global or the fault of the last government.
Absolutely unforgivable and will have large damaging effect on this country for decades to come IMO.