|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 15, 2023 7:54:34 GMT
The 2010 manifestos from both main Parties were promising similar levels of spending reductions. In the event we know there no actual significant spending cuts. So local government funding hasn't been cut by 40%? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 15, 2023 8:20:42 GMT
The 2010 manifestos from both main Parties were promising similar levels of spending reductions. In the event we know there no actual significant spending cuts. So local government funding hasn't been cut by 40%? Real Public spending has risen every year since 2010 - meanwhile the UK has seen no growth. That is unsustainable. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 15, 2023 8:25:50 GMT
Perhaps you can remind readers on the forum. And remind people that Labour usually run the low paid and often high unemployed areas of the country. Run them even further into the ground. Labour are no friends of the working class or the poor. They are more so than the Tories, that's why the low paid and the poorest tend to vote Labour. They live it, they know it. In their world your opinion counts for nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 15, 2023 8:27:36 GMT
So local government funding hasn't been cut by 40%? Real Public spending has risen every year since 2010 - meanwhile the UK has seen no growth. That is unsustainable. Covid would have played a major part in that. Edit. I think we have been here before, and found that the percentage rise in public spending had been dramatically cut since 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 15, 2023 8:29:56 GMT
Real Public spending has risen every year since 2010 - meanwhile the UK has seen no growth. That is unsustainable. Covid would have played a major part in that. Covid only covered a couple of years - the rest the Tories spent like Viv Nicholson. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 15, 2023 8:52:46 GMT
Covid would have played a major part in that. Covid only covered a couple of years - the rest the Tories spent like Viv Nicholson. See my Edit to my previous post. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 15, 2023 8:54:13 GMT
Because they hadn’t found them ffs. Things that aren’t there are very hard to find 🙄 Because the Inspectors were not allowed to do their job. How long does it take for that to sink in? They didn’t exist . How long does it take for that to sink in? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 15, 2023 11:39:23 GMT
Real Public spending has risen every year since 2010 - meanwhile the UK has seen no growth. That is unsustainable. Covid would have played a major part in that. Edit. I think we have been here before, and found that the percentage rise in public spending had been dramatically cut since 2010. Yes - the rate of rise in Public spending was reduced. But the only effect that had was to give more time before the amount of Public spending became unaffordable. Unless we get back to growth any major increases are unsustainable. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 15, 2023 13:36:26 GMT
Because the Inspectors were not allowed to do their job. How long does it take for that to sink in? They didn’t exist . How long does it take for that to sink in? They certainly existed in 1999, Nine years after Saddam claimed to have destroyed all WMD, Hans Blix: "To give an example, the report says that extensive evacuations undertaken by the Iraqi side and witnessed by inspectors showed that a large number of R-400 bombs declared to have contained biological agent and to have been unilaterally destroyed in 1999 were, in fact, destroyed." If some were hidden between 1990 and 1999, who is to say that Iraq didn't have more hidden away? You might with the help of hindsight, but unfortunately that would count for nothing in the real world. Now, I know you are not debating and I also know that you are being deliberately, or otherwise, obtuse, not clever. --- Bye. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 15, 2023 20:50:39 GMT
They didn’t exist . How long does it take for that to sink in? They certainly existed in 1999, Nine years after Saddam claimed to have destroyed all WMD, Hans Blix: "To give an example, the report says that extensive evacuations undertaken by the Iraqi side and witnessed by inspectors showed that a large number of R-400 bombs declared to have contained biological agent and to have been unilaterally destroyed in 1999 were, in fact, destroyed." If some were hidden between 1990 and 1999, who is to say that Iraq didn't have more hidden away? You might with the help of hindsight, but unfortunately that would count for nothing in the real world. Now, I know you are not debating and I also know that you are being deliberately, or otherwise, obtuse, not clever. --- Bye. The Iraq war stared in 2003 . You are blathering on about events years before . Its not the lying and dishonesty that is irritating. I expect it . Its your belief that others are stupid enough to accept them Wiki “The United States based most of its rationale for the invasion on claims that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program and posed a threat to the United States and its allies. Additionally, some US officials accused Saddam of harbouring and supporting al-Qaeda. However, in 2004 the 9/11 Commission concluded there was no evidence of any relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda. No stockpiles of WMDs or active WMD program were ever found in Iraq. Bush administration officials made numerous claims about a purported Saddam–al-Qaeda relationship and WMDs that were based on insufficient evidence rejected by intelligence officials. The rationale for the Iraq War faced heavy criticism both domestically and internationally. Kofi Annan, then the Secretary-General of the United Nations, called the invasion illegal under international law, as it violated the UN Charter. “ |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 15, 2023 21:14:52 GMT
They certainly existed in 1999, Nine years after Saddam claimed to have destroyed all WMD, Hans Blix: "To give an example, the report says that extensive evacuations undertaken by the Iraqi side and witnessed by inspectors showed that a large number of R-400 bombs declared to have contained biological agent and to have been unilaterally destroyed in 1999 were, in fact, destroyed." If some were hidden between 1990 and 1999, who is to say that Iraq didn't have more hidden away? You might with the help of hindsight, but unfortunately that would count for nothing in the real world. Now, I know you are not debating and I also know that you are being deliberately, or otherwise, obtuse, not clever. --- Bye. The Iraq war stared in 2003 . You are blathering on about events years before . Its not the lying and dishonesty that is irritating. I expect it . Its your belief that others are stupid enough to accept them Wiki “The United States based most of its rationale for the invasion on claims that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program and posed a threat to the United States and its allies. Additionally, some US officials accused Saddam of harbouring and supporting al-Qaeda. However, in 2004 the 9/11 Commission concluded there was no evidence of any relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda. No stockpiles of WMDs or active WMD program were ever found in Iraq. Bush administration officials made numerous claims about a purported Saddam–al-Qaeda relationship and WMDs that were based on insufficient evidence rejected by intelligence officials. The rationale for the Iraq War faced heavy criticism both domestically and internationally. Kofi Annan, then the Secretary-General of the United Nations, called the invasion illegal under international law, as it violated the UN Charter. “ he he he, its obvious that under all of your blather you did get and you did feel the truth of my post. You can screw up your thought processes but you can't fool your emotional system. I have previously explained that I am not defending anything that America said or did, I am just defending the truth that Blair stood for. I posted the final UN resolution decision yet you quote Annan who was a mere Secretary with no legal training and no authority to overrule the UN Security Council. He was of course entitled to his OPINION. You offer nothing more than a bag of straws that you are clutching, no wonder you skip debating so often. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 15, 2023 21:22:16 GMT
The Iraq war stared in 2003 . You are blathering on about events years before . Its not the lying and dishonesty that is irritating. I expect it . Its your belief that others are stupid enough to accept them Wiki “The United States based most of its rationale for the invasion on claims that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program and posed a threat to the United States and its allies. Additionally, some US officials accused Saddam of harbouring and supporting al-Qaeda. However, in 2004 the 9/11 Commission concluded there was no evidence of any relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda. No stockpiles of WMDs or active WMD program were ever found in Iraq. Bush administration officials made numerous claims about a purported Saddam–al-Qaeda relationship and WMDs that were based on insufficient evidence rejected by intelligence officials. The rationale for the Iraq War faced heavy criticism both domestically and internationally. Kofi Annan, then the Secretary-General of the United Nations, called the invasion illegal under international law, as it violated the UN Charter. “ he he he, its obvious that under all of your blather you did get and you did feel the truth of my post. You can screw up your thought processes but you can't fool your emotional system. I have previously explained that I am not defending anything that America said or did, I am just defending the truth that Blair stood for. I posted the final UN resolution decision yet you quote Annan who was a mere Secretary with no legal training and no authority to overrule the UN Security Council. He was of course entitled to his OPINION. You offer nothing more than a bag of straws that you are clutching, no wonder you skip debating so often. Nope. You are constructing your own narrative to refute with your usual blathering and infantile “ he he “ comments . My original comment “ There never was WMDs . It was a lie .“ You haven’t refuted that because you can’t . |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 16, 2023 12:47:24 GMT
Indeed they do. Regardless of inflation, borrowing more and more is the socialist way. Remind me, how many Labour councils have declared bankruptcy? Perhaps you can remind readers on the forum. And remind people that Labour usually run the low paid and often high unemployed areas of the country. Indeed, and lets not forget Labour rely on Muslim votes in at least 30 constituencies. Which is why Starmer has just lost half his front bench lol. Labour MP's who represent Muslim constituencies are frightened of losing their seats if they don't support Hamas. Labour's minority appeasing chickens comming home to roost perhaps? |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Nov 16, 2023 12:56:34 GMT
We tried right wing popularism and it failed dreadfully. 5 PMs and 7 Home secretaries since shooting ourselves in the foot in 2016. Going back to the centre will be a relief.we have had the centre for last 13 years monte - name one thing thing that the Tories have done that would be a conservative policy? Too true , the government for the past 13 years has been centre , sometimes centre left One thing it isn't is right wing or following conservative policies |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Nov 16, 2023 12:57:37 GMT
we have had the centre for last 13 years monte - name one thing thing that the Tories have done that would be a conservative policy? Austerity. What austerity? |
|
