|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 12, 2023 14:45:26 GMT
Nope, it matters not how often you repeat it, the argument that there's always someone worse off is totally irrelevant. I apologise if I have misconstrued your post but it seems to me mate that you support greed as this is what these strikes are all about and of course wrecking the country. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 12, 2023 18:04:13 GMT
For the first 3 years New Labour followed Tory spending plans - and as you have already admitted the reason for them building less social housing than the tories was that they shifted spending priorities to education. Building less housing was a political decision - they thought there were other more important priorities. This is normal government action, there is nothing unusual about it. First three years followed the Tory spending plan might have been in terms of cash spent, but certainly didn't mean following Tory policies. By 2000 NL had already changed the economy into a NL approach. See Brown's speech to the TUC in 2000. That would be a case of educating yourself to the reality away from Tory propaganda. NL inherited a housing problem at the lower end of the market from the Tories, a problem exacerbated by their selling off of Council Houses. Just one more unpaid bill inherited from the Tories. That the Tories were able to build a few more than NL after 2010, than NL built before 2010, is a credit to NL's many many improvements made since 1997.
Bugger all to do with New Labour - simply a change in priorities. The Tories prioritised social housing new Labour didn't - thats all there is to it. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 12, 2023 18:23:02 GMT
For the first 3 years New Labour followed Tory spending plans - and as you have already admitted the reason for them building less social housing than the tories was that they shifted spending priorities to education. Building less housing was a political decision - they thought there were other more important priorities. This is normal government action, there is nothing unusual about it. First three years followed the Tory spending plan might have been in terms of cash spent, but certainly didn't mean following Tory policies. By 2000 NL had already changed the economy into a NL approach. See Brown's speech to the TUC in 2000. That would be a case of educating yourself to the reality away from Tory propaganda. NL inherited a housing problem at the lower end of the market from the Tories, a problem exacerbated by their selling off of Council Houses. Just one more unpaid bill inherited from the Tories. That the Tories were able to build a few more than NL after 2010, than NL built before 2010, is a credit to NL's many many improvements made since 1997. -------------------- Just read it - this bit of his delusional fairy story (the NL approach?) stuck out like a sore thumb given that Labour then gave GPs the opportunity to work office hours only , yet the gullible will not have a word said against the idiot  We have given guarantees about GP services that there will be weekend opening and evening to suit you the patient to go at the time that is most convenient.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/15/gordon-brown-tuc-speech |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2023 18:41:07 GMT
Nope, it matters not how often you repeat it, the argument that there's always someone worse off is totally irrelevant. I apologise if I have misconstrued your post but it seems to me mate that you support greed as this is what these strikes are all about and of course wrecking the country. Absolute nonsense. You read the Daily Mail's crap too much and - still worse - willingly allow yourself to be brainwashed by it. The strikes have nothing to do with greed and everything to do with resisting real terms pay cuts year after year without apparent end, as well as protecting services. At what point are they supposed to say enough is enough? It is your beloved government who have pushed them into this corner. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 12, 2023 20:59:48 GMT
First three years followed the Tory spending plan might have been in terms of cash spent, but certainly didn't mean following Tory policies. By 2000 NL had already changed the economy into a NL approach. See Brown's speech to the TUC in 2000. That would be a case of educating yourself to the reality away from Tory propaganda. NL inherited a housing problem at the lower end of the market from the Tories, a problem exacerbated by their selling off of Council Houses. Just one more unpaid bill inherited from the Tories. That the Tories were able to build a few more than NL after 2010, than NL built before 2010, is a credit to NL's many many improvements made since 1997. -------------------- Just read it - this bit of his delusional fairy story (the NL approach?) stuck out like a sore thumb given that Labour then gave GPs the opportunity to work office hours only , yet the gullible will not have a word said against the idiot We have given guarantees about GP services that there will be weekend opening and evening to suit you the patient to go at the time that is most convenient.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/15/gordon-brown-tuc-speechFortunately he was in time to stop a recession turning into a depression. I wonder if you gave him credit for that ? In the speech Brown was setting out his post meltdown ideas in 2009, but AS WE KNOW he never got the opportunity to develop them. I read the full speech, all of it. Hears one for yourself. "So we retained and extended the fuel duty escalator that had been operated by the Conservatives in successive years every year since 1993, and there were good environmental reasons as Kyoto proved for doing so. But last November – immediately – I had cut the deficit and was able to put in place new environmental measures. I said we would end the escalator, and we froze, and for four million cars reduced, car licence fees in a March Budget that was welcomed by the motoring industry. Today, now that the deficit is down, let us note that the existing fuel revenues are not being wasted but are paying for what the public wants and needs – now paying for £10 billion of extra investment in schools and hospitals this year – a total of £18 billion extra invested in our public services, including roads and public transport, money well invested at the service of all the people. Yes, we have higher excise duties than in Europe but we also have just about the lowest tax rates on work, the lowest business tax rates, the lowest VAT rates and, unlike America, and we should be proud to say so, we fund from these revenues a truly National Health Service which is open to all the people." www.ukpol.co.uk/gordon-brown-2000-speech-to-tuc-conference/ |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 13, 2023 16:54:23 GMT
First three years followed the Tory spending plan might have been in terms of cash spent, but certainly didn't mean following Tory policies. By 2000 NL had already changed the economy into a NL approach. See Brown's speech to the TUC in 2000. That would be a case of educating yourself to the reality away from Tory propaganda. NL inherited a housing problem at the lower end of the market from the Tories, a problem exacerbated by their selling off of Council Houses. Just one more unpaid bill inherited from the Tories. That the Tories were able to build a few more than NL after 2010, than NL built before 2010, is a credit to NL's many many improvements made since 1997.
Bugger all to do with New Labour - simply a change in priorities. The Tories prioritised social housing new Labour didn't - thats all there is to it. So if NL had left the list of the things that needed finance and attention (below) left to NL by the Tories, to the Tories, the Tories would still have built more homes? __"My point was that New Labour had one hell of a job to sort out the mess the Tories left behind. Not just the housing problem. 1997: Inherited from the Tories. 1. Unemployment still higher than when Thatcher came to office in 1979. (4 million at one stage.) High unemployment means high state aid for the unemployed. (Inherited cost from the Tories.) 2. 3 Million children living in relative poverty. (Inherited cost from the Tories.) 3. Most of State education in the mire through lack of finance due to Thatcher's Grant Maintained separatist education system. (Inherited costs from the Tories.) 4.Too many teachers taking early retirement because of the mess of the education system. (Inherited costs from the Tories) 5. Encouraging teachers back into education and upping the training of new teachers. (Inherited cost from the Tories.) 6. Ditto in training doctors, Nurses etc. for the NHS. (More inherited costs from the Tories.) 7. NHS excessively run down. As you well know. (More inherited costs from the Tories) That's some of the direct costs inherited. If the Tories are that good how come they didn't sort all those problems out and build the houses needed during their 18 years to 1997 in office? According to yourself all they needed to do was to change their priorities  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2023 23:46:30 GMT
Bugger all to do with New Labour - simply a change in priorities. The Tories prioritised social housing new Labour didn't - thats all there is to it. So if NL had left the list of the things that needed finance and attention (below) left to NL by the Tories, to the Tories, the Tories would still have built more homes? __"My point was that New Labour had one hell of a job to sort out the mess the Tories left behind. Not just the housing problem. 1997: Inherited from the Tories. 1. Unemployment still higher than when Thatcher came to office in 1979. (4 million at one stage.) High unemployment means high state aid for the unemployed. (Inherited cost from the Tories.) 2. 3 Million children living in relative poverty. (Inherited cost from the Tories.) 3. Most of State education in the mire through lack of finance due to Thatcher's Grant Maintained separatist education system. (Inherited costs from the Tories.) 4.Too many teachers taking early retirement because of the mess of the education system. (Inherited costs from the Tories) 5. Encouraging teachers back into education and upping the training of new teachers. (Inherited cost from the Tories.) 6. Ditto in training doctors, Nurses etc. for the NHS. (More inherited costs from the Tories.) 7. NHS excessively run down. As you well know. (More inherited costs from the Tories) That's some of the direct costs inherited. If the Tories are that good how come they didn't sort all those problems out and build the houses needed during their 18 years to 1997 in office? According to yourself all they needed to do was to change their priorities The Thatcher and Major governments didn't prioritise social housing either. On the contrary their aim was to gradually do away with it and let the private sector take over. New Labour chose not to prioritise it either and indeed built even less of it than the Tories had, And thus played their part in contributing to the housing crisis of today. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 14, 2023 8:03:09 GMT
Bugger all to do with New Labour - simply a change in priorities. The Tories prioritised social housing new Labour didn't - thats all there is to it. So if NL had left the list of the things that needed finance and attention (below) left to NL by the Tories, to the Tories, the Tories would still have built more homes? Nobody knows - that is the point. What we do know is that the Tories made had different spending priorities which led them to build more social housing than New Labour. You can come up with a load of irrelevant 'what if's' but you cannot buck historical facts. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 14, 2023 8:47:28 GMT
So if NL had left the list of the things that needed finance and attention (below) left to NL by the Tories, to the Tories, the Tories would still have built more homes? Nobody knows - that is the point. What we do know is that the Tories made had different spending priorities which led them to build more social housing than New Labour. You can come up with a load of irrelevant 'what if's' but you cannot buck historical facts. No it isn't the point, the Tories didn't have to make a choice about repairing the damage to the country done by the Tories, because NL had already done the repairs. Your obvious bias is the point. As usual you ignore the obvious in you deceitful attempts to undermine NL. Shame on you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2023 20:12:54 GMT
Nobody knows - that is the point. What we do know is that the Tories made had different spending priorities which led them to build more social housing than New Labour. You can come up with a load of irrelevant 'what if's' but you cannot buck historical facts. No it isn't the point, the Tories didn't have to make a choice about repairing the damage to the country done by the Tories, because NL had already done the repairs. Your obvious bias is the point. As usual you ignore the obvious in you deceitful attempts to undermine NL. Shame on you. You always accuse everyone who disagrees with you or challenges you - especially if they do it with valid points - as being biased, as if you are the only one who isn't. Yet your own bias towards New Labour is so absolute that you cannot even acknowledge any mistakes or errors of judgement on their part. Yet all politicians, parties, factions, and sides make those. Hence your total bias. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 14, 2023 21:38:46 GMT
No it isn't the point, the Tories didn't have to make a choice about repairing the damage to the country done by the Tories, because NL had already done the repairs. Your obvious bias is the point. As usual you ignore the obvious in you deceitful attempts to undermine NL. Shame on you. You always accuse everyone who disagrees with you or challenges you - especially if they do it with valid points - as being biased, as if you are the only one who isn't. Yet your own bias towards New Labour is so absolute that you cannot even acknowledge any mistakes or errors of judgement on their part. Yet all politicians, parties, factions, and sides make those. Hence your total bias. If you had actually followed the context of the exchanges you could not in all honesty have posted your (ongoing need to insult) post above. I note that you started off with a lie, have you no shame? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2023 21:41:52 GMT
You always accuse everyone who disagrees with you or challenges you - especially if they do it with valid points - as being biased, as if you are the only one who isn't. Yet your own bias towards New Labour is so absolute that you cannot even acknowledge any mistakes or errors of judgement on their part. Yet all politicians, parties, factions, and sides make those. Hence your total bias. If you had actually followed the context of the exchanges you could not in all honesty have posted your (ongoing need to insult) post above. I note that you started off with a lie, have you no shame?  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 14, 2023 21:48:35 GMT
If you had actually followed the context of the exchanges you could not in all honesty have posted your (ongoing need to insult) post above. I note that you started off with a lie, have you no shame? I see you giggling like a silly little girl, it matches many of your posts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2023 22:21:53 GMT
I see you giggling like a silly little girl, it matches many of your posts. Yawn. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 14, 2023 22:28:03 GMT
Nobody knows - that is the point. What we do know is that the Tories made had different spending priorities which led them to build more social housing than New Labour. You can come up with a load of irrelevant 'what if's' but you cannot buck historical facts. No it isn't the point, the Tories didn't have to make a choice about repairing the damage to the country done by the Tories, because NL had already done the repairs. Your obvious bias is the point. As usual you ignore the obvious in you deceitful attempts to undermine NL. Shame on you. LOL - now you are reduced to rewriting history. The Tories built more Social Housing before and after the Labour years in Government. If the Tories could build houses Labour could as well - they just chose not to. |
|
