  |
 The Tory lies and deceit thread |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Jul 17 2015, 07:12 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,647 User: 3,272 
        
|
I thought it would be fun to have a thread keeping track of various Tory lies and deceptions. I’ll start with a few examples of some of their pre-election pronouncements. I’ll use separate posts so that it is easier to discuss each one.
In February, a Tory minister announced that fracking would not be allowed in SSSIs. Yesterday, they announced a slight change in policy. The word “not” has been removed. Well, it’s only three letters, isn’t it? |
 |
 
|
|
Jul 17 2015, 07:12 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,647 User: 3,272
|
In February the Culture, Media & Sport select committee published a report about the BBC. One section looked at the way the BBC was bounced into a very harsh licence foo settlement after the 2010 election. The MPs concluded that this should not be allowed to happen again, and that the process should be more open next time. The report was presented by the then chair of the committee, a Tory MP called John Whittingdale.
Earlier this month, the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, who, by a remarkable coincidence, is a Tory MP called John Whittingdale, bounced the BBC into paying for the free licences for over 75s. So, when Cameron promised not to reduce any pensioners’ benefits, he forgot to tell us that some of the cost of that would be borne by the BBC. Perhaps the next move will be to replace, say, £40 of the pension with grocery vouchers. Those vouchers would be redeemable in supermarkets etc., but the cost will be borne by the retailer, not the government. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 17 2015, 07:13 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,647 User: 3,272
|
Shortly before the first election debate, a Lib Dem minister (remember when they were a thing?) claimed that the Tories were considering cuts to child tax credits. Cameron was asked about that in the debate. He responded that it was in a report listing various options and that it had been dismissed. He went on to say that it would be dismissed again if the Tories were still in power after the election. In last week’s Budget, Osborne announced large cuts in child tax credit, cuts which will more than outweigh the increase in the minimum wage for many families.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 17 2015, 11:35 PM
Post
#4
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,792 User: 17,376
|
How about (and this one concerns me and my rapidly deteriorating parents) the sudden change of date in policy for those paying for their own care from savings and the house they live in (and I live in) cap being delayed until 2020 when they swore it was coming in in 2015/6.
These are all issues which the opposition should be loudly shouting from the rooftops about, the Tories are changing all of their promises already in a bold, slimy manner weeks into a new government and no-one is accusing them of anything like the furore the libdems got over much less. The prime function of an Opposition, even one in the throws of an election, is to bring the government to task and do it's utmost to protect the population from the deceit and self-serving in power. We need headlines and the same message repeated over and over until it gets through the right-wing press. Tories, of course, always do what's best for them - both to get elected and then cherry-pick what they do and don't do afterwards. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 17 2015, 11:42 PM
Post
#5
|
|
 nabad
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 13 February 2013 Posts: 28,340 User: 18,316
        
|
The one thing about the whole BBC debacle that's irking me a lot is that the Tories are hell bent on doing away with the BBC Trust, yet in their Green Paper, they're throwing statistic this, statistic that about what the BBC is doing wrong into the mix... from the BBC Trust.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2015, 12:56 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Queen of Soon
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 74,051 User: 3,474
  
|
After being found out for bombing Syria against the parliamentary vote, the foi act is now under threat of being axed
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2015, 02:35 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Buzzjack's Finest Alcoholic.
Joined: 19 November 2011
Posts: 10,365 User: 15,367
   
|
QUOTE(Silas @ Jul 18 2015, 01:56 PM)  After being found out for bombing Syria against the parliamentary vote, the foi act is now under threat of being axed Even worse when they are trying to enforce the snoopers charter. They don't want the public to know what they do, but they demand that they know what we do? |
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2015, 03:59 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,792 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(Calum Hood @ Jul 18 2015, 12:42 AM) The one thing about the whole BBC debacle that's irking me a lot is that the Tories are hell bent on doing away with the BBC Trust, yet in their Green Paper, they're throwing statistic this, statistic that about what the BBC is doing wrong into the mix... from the BBC Trust. The Tories don't like anything that challenges their power-base (they are quite happy for multi-billionaire foreigners to have a massive political sway in the country, no question about British democracy there or quality programming, quite happy to see channels and channels of rubbish and endless Fox/Sky news propaganda) and the relatively small amount the TV-licence payer (not the taxpayer!) forks out for the BBC gives the UK enormous international rational prestige worth billions to the UK in industry promotion, the music industry gets millions from the BBC radio promotion of new music that commercial radio ignores, and the BBC DVD and foreign sales section brings in shitloads of money for the likes of Doctor Who. Not to mention award winning entertainment and information programmes. The Tory government is totally politically motivated, there is no public outcry to get rid of the licence fee, just some people dodging paying for it by going online. That is easily resolved with a TV licence pass code. It's also an opportunity to charge pay as you go for non-licence-fee payers and non-UK-residents. Detestable. Loathsome. Feel free to add any other suitable words for them..... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2015, 06:40 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,647 User: 3,272
|
Calling Tories detestable and loathsome is hardly fair. OK, some of them are indeed detestable and loathsome but most of them are far worse than that.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2015, 09:03 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,792 User: 17,376
|
ha!
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 9 2015, 06:54 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,792 User: 17,376
|
following a very interesting Private Eye investigation into offshore-companies owning vast swathes of UK land and property, it would appear that David Cameron's assurances that he would chase tax dodgers and publish lists of who owns what have been left surprisingly unfulfilled. It seems that millionaires who can't actually explain where their money comes from (non-British) and UK-resident wealthy folk have offshore companies in tax havens, many of them British tax havens, and are hidden under layer upon layer of other companies to hide the real owners.
Private Eye has provided a handy online map showing all the properties in case anyone fancies doing a £3 land reg enquiry to find out more and try to match it up with HSBC-revealed files from Switzerland. The police force (who investigate only "the tip of the iceberg" due to lack of funding) would no doubt be interested in information. An unkind person might suspect that the Tory Party have a lot to lose, given a lot of these individuals appear to donate large sums to the party (at the very least). As I'm a kind person I'll just comment that David Cameron is f***ing useless at his job - which is catching criminals, managing the economy, reaping in sorely-needed lost taxes - preferring instead to target the lower-end of the income scale to the upper-end. It's almost as if he has something to lose...... |
|
|
|
|
Sep 9 2015, 07:26 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,168 User: 7,561
 
|
Indeed.
That map which you mention is available here and is an excellent resource: http://www.private-eye.co.uk/registry |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2015, 08:38 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,792 User: 17,376
|
How about a direct comparison between old fashioned inefficient 1980's local government and current modern streamlined outsourced local government?
How many members of staff does it take to change a lightbulb in Local Government? Olden days? 3 (one to report, one in-house handyman to buy bulb, do the job and send invoice in to finance section, one finance officer to process and pay invoice (or petty cash). These days? 12. This is not a joke. It's a minimum number, sometimes it's more. I keep hoping some national newspaper will put a freedom of info request in to all L.G.A's regarding lightbulb changes and members of staff...... on the plus side, they are long-life, low-energy, white-light strip-bulb's these days, none of your 40-watts screw-in. There is of course, no screw-in allowed in Local Gov. 
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 6 2015, 11:20 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,792 User: 17,376
|
interesting proganda coming, as the Rich get stuck into the poor, at the Tory conference and the Taxpayers Alliance led by a right-wing nut try to elbow them to move even more to the right, especially on old people, on the grounds apparently that they shouldn't worry about losing votes since most of them will be dead by the next election, at which point a few sweets can be chucked out at the survivors.
It's refreshing to see a Tory not trying to hide behind smarmy soundbites, much as the current intnention to make the poor work harder, as hard as the Chinese, it's their own fault, after all, that they failed to go to the best schools that money can buy and the subsequent career in politics and all those associated benefits that brings. So there you have it, the kinder more caring Tory Party at last outs themselves, as racist, elitist, uncaring bast*rds who are intent on trying to force all councils to enter freemarket business rates policies to scrape together cash, leaving those poorer councils depending on handouts from the richer ones, cos frankly the chances of businesses relocating to (coincidentally non-Tory) councils is fairly remote. Even Boris Johnson is going to speak out, apparently, at the lessening of his chnaces of getting to run the country. More than high time that Euroseptic split in the party came to fore.... |
|
|
|
|
Oct 29 2015, 01:34 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,647 User: 3,272
|
The government has recently introduced a new version of the Ministerial Code, laying out how ministers are meant to behave. You may well have missed it. While the last version fiver years ago was launched with much fanfare, this one was slipped out rather more quietly with a discreet, largely ignored, statement in the House of Lords.
One major change is the deletion of the requirement to have regard for international law. Dominic Grieve, Attorney General (the minister who also acts as a legal adviser) until last year when he was sacked for supporting Human Rights, has criticised this change. As for his successor, Jeremy Wright, you might have thought that he would have been consulted. Maybe he was, but this is what he said in a speech to an International Law Conference on the very day the Lords announcement was made. QUOTE International law binds the UK, both as a central tenet of our constitutional framework and as a distinct legal regime at the international level. The constitutional principle to respect the rule of law and comply with our international obligations is reflected in the Ministerial Code – which applies to me as much as to any other minister. The Code states that there is an overarching duty on ministers to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations and to uphold the administration of justice and to protect the integrity of public life. That would suggest that, either he knew nothing about the change, or he knew about it and was making his opposition known, albeit quietly.It should also be noted that the government have said they made the change to bring the Ministerial Code more in line with the Civil Service code. That is contradicted by Wright's next sentence. QUOTE That duty is mirrored in the Civil Service Code and so applies to all of us in government, whether ministers, lawyers or officials. So, yet more lies and deceit from Cameron and co. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 29 2015, 10:36 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,792 User: 17,376
|
There have been so many reversals on election promises lately by the tory party in full blood-lust unbridled ive given up trying to list them. Easier to list promises they have stuck to...
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 12 2015, 08:06 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,792 User: 17,376
|
How about £2 m cuts to services in Dorset to support the mentally ill, alcohol, drug and sexual health, among other services. This will work out cheaper for the government overall because PEOPLE WILL DIE. Only just cheaper though, because a lot of them will end up costing in hospital afterwards en route to dying or improving.
Can I just say I loathe the warped values of the Tories, and their sick support of the massively rich in favour of hitting those most in need? Thanks, I knew you wouldn't mind. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 21 2015, 03:06 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,647 User: 3,272
|
They're at it again. Either that, or Jeremy Hunt is wasting a lot of time and effort.
Yes, it's the junior doctors' dispute. It isn't all about pay, despite Hunt's attempts to persuade people otherwise. However, he has been sending mixed messages about pay. He has claimed that no junior doctor will see their pay cut under his proposals. However, he has also said that the new pay scheme will not cost any more than the current scheme. Those two statements are only compatible if every junior doctor will be paid exactly what they are paid now. If that is the case, what on earth is the point? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 21 2015, 11:27 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,792 User: 17,376
|
well, if my local gov experience is any guide, the maths work as follows:
get rid of some doctors. make those not sacked work longer hours, and faster, with no pay increase. job done. Apparent savings made. Except that the unfortunate side effects turn up elsewhere costing either money or lives or misery, or any combination. The concept of cause and effect and logic is as alien to the Tories in power as the local Tories when it comes to creative accounting and political theory over cold facts. Our council has just announced another successful couple of early retirees in Finance and Section 151 Officers, err 5th since we hived off staff to the (instantly) bankrupt private sector. These are facts. The public examination of the "savings" are not a matter of public record. They are "confidential". The Tories (and Blair) really really hate Freedom Of Information. I mean, they really look down on it. A bit like my attitude to the local rag which chooses not to ask the right FOI questions and to publish them, preferring instead to wittle on about a dog bin not being emptied in a park (ignoring the root causes of bins not being emptied). |
|
|
|
|
Nov 21 2015, 11:44 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,647 User: 3,272
|
Are you suggesting the Bournemouth Echo is a bit sh1t?
|
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 16th April 2024 - 06:14 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
