  |
 The Tory lies and deceit thread |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 13th January 2016, 09:33 PM
Post
#61
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,676 User: 3,272 
         |
For me, the real issue with election promises is whether the party made that promise despite having no intention of delivering on it. While some Lib Dems (notably Nick Clegg), had reservations about the tuition fees policy, I don't think they intended to renege on it within months of the election. On the other hand, the Tories' "No top-down reorganisation of the NHS" promise was a blatant lie. The same applied to their promise not to allow tracking in SSSIs.
The same applies to things governments do that were not in the manifesto. Obviously, there will be occasions when a government can claim that circumstances have changed since the election. However, in the first year, it is hard to excuse introducing significant new clauses to legislation as the Tories have down with their new rules on council tenancies. |
 |
 
|
|
20th January 2016, 03:04 PM
Post
#62
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376
 |
2 issues I don't recall being election promises, and to be fair, one is one I don't necessarily disagree with (that'll be the pension tax relief changes to a more universal percentage for everyone, hitting the better off Tory voters - eh?! Surely shome mishtake!).
T'other is the final nail in the coffin of further education for the poor and disadvantaged. They now how to borrow cash like everyone else, put themselves in potential debt or actual debt and avoid the best most-expensive uni's to attend those will let them get a less-than-average-wage career in local government (like me) where you never earn enough to have to pay back the debts. It's sort of like a guaranteed well-educated underclass to ensure the best-paid jobs go to the offspring of the rich, and therefore the more important members of society. A bit like the new academy system will create massive mega-schools as the schools realise the money they get, once the staff have given themselves generous rises, won't actually cover things like, oh, building repairs, insurance, consultancy fees etc and get taken over by increasingly big factory farming schools. The private ones, of course, will still be marvellous. At least that's how I see the scenario unfolding over the next 10 years until the next Labour Gov takes all schools back in house again as they realise too many free school nutters have harmed a generation of kids prospects and too many school buildings are starting to fall down from lack of maintenance. I could be wrong, I suggest coming back in 2025 or 2030 depending on when Labour get credible again. 
|
|
|
|
|
20th January 2016, 04:31 PM
Post
#63
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,676 User: 3,272
|
And, to make it worse, the government haven't introduced the changes to student finance by the old-fashioned way of a piece of legislation. That would mean having to debate it in parliament which would never do. So, it is being introduced by ministerial decree, thereby ensuring it gets as little scrutiny as possible. We wouldn't want those pesky Lords getting in the way, would we?
My biggest fear with the academies is that some of these companies running them will go bust, or decide they don't want to be involved any more. What happens to the schools then? Not that it matters much really. They are only used to educate plebs' children anyway. |
|
|
|
|
20th January 2016, 07:21 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Jan 20 2016, 04:31 PM)  And, to make it worse, the government haven't introduced the changes to student finance by the old-fashioned way of a piece of legislation. That would mean having to debate it in parliament which would never do. So, it is being introduced by ministerial decree, thereby ensuring it gets as little scrutiny as possible. We wouldn't want those pesky Lords getting in the way, would we? My biggest fear with the academies is that some of these companies running them will go bust, or decide they don't want to be involved any more. What happens to the schools then? Not that it matters much really. They are only used to educate plebs' children anyway. Round Bournemouth underperforming schools get taken over by performing (private) schools looking at a bit of extra cash injection. What they do with it remains to be seen in the long run, but at least one troibled school in Poole has no 6th formers - they've opted to go elsewhere. There's a free school set up in a former town centre council block of offices has moved to Bournemouth Airport - the school run for that one should be very interesting. I'm sure by now you've read with some amusement the local Tory announcements summarising what a successful job they have done: Having successfully saved an alleged 10m pounds (unsubstantiated by any actual published figures) the badly-written contract with a private contractor with staff transferred under TUPE (alleged, because it's confidential, but it was written fairly quickly - in far less time than I spent working on a water-tight contract for Bournemouth Parks in the 80's) which then went bankrupt immediately (as warned by the senior staff doing their job, who were sacked for having the temerity to do the job they were contracted to do) has been terminated now they need to join with Poole Council and chop some jobs they otherwise couldn't chop (sorry, I mean rationalise via merger) while the staff are employed privately and they have achieved all they can achieve partnered with the private sector. Apparently 175 jobs (or 177 according to the same press release) have been created in the private sector. I'd love to know where they are working, and what on, as my maths regarding bums -on-seats must be very very faulty (above and beyond the existing transferred staff who still reside at the Town Hall). Some wags have suggested that future partners have been of the "bargepole, wouldn't, I, with, it, touch a" opinion. I couldn't comment on this. Other wags have suggested the new Council be called Pournemouth, PooChurchBo or Greater Bournemouth (Incorporating Christchurch and Poole). The Bank Of Bournemouth has also been wound down after a very successful couple of years. I spluttered and guffawed when I heard about the proposals 2 or 3 years ago, but I really do have egg on my face now, eh? Tch! Maybe we need a "local government" thread to highlight all of the helpful decisions all councils make (and so avoid party bias)... |
|
|
|
|
8th February 2016, 01:13 PM
Post
#65
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,676 User: 3,272
|
The government has been sending out very confusing signals over the tax deal with Google whereby the highly profitable company has paid just £130 million to cover their tax bill for the last ten years. When it was first announces, Osborne claimed that it was a greats victory for the government, particularly for himself.
Sadly for Gideon, it soon became apparent that the ungrateful public were less than impressed with the deal, so the government story changed. Suddenly, it was nothing to do with the government. All those meetings between Treasury ministers and Google executives were clearly about something else entirely. The story has continued to unravel. First, any claim that the deal had anything to do with Osborne's so-called "Google Tax" was soon debunked. The total amount paid as a result of that change was precisely nothing. Then it emerged that the £130 million wasn't just a tax on profits. A quarter of it was connected to a share option scheme, leaving them having paid under £100 million in tax on profits over a ten year period. Nobody has yet commented on whether that sum includes interest. After all, some of the money will have been outstanding for ten years. In the meantime, Osborne was at the Superbowl last night. Ah well, you might say, how he spends his money is up to him. That would be true if he had indeed spent his own money, but he didn't. It was paid for by an American company. Which company? Google. |
|
|
|
|
8th February 2016, 09:17 PM
Post
#66
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376
|
Michael Gove has also been getting free tickets to football matches from Russian Oligarchs. Had I, a humble employee of local government, accepted bribes from the private sector (this is how they are viewed as we might be swayed when handing out contracts) I would be sacked.
Hypocrites, and they are of course, not swayed remotely by all the freebies when handing out contracts and collecting tax. According to Private Eye, several rightwing press former reporters are now BS peddlers for No. 10 and Duncan-Smith, while Georgie Porgie had 8 meetings with Rupert Murdoch over the last 2 years. Talk about all in it together. As much as the former senior bankers are. Having gotten away with murder and world economic devastation from their incompetency and idiocy and blind selfishness, half of 'em now have jobs with all of the "new" banks created in the UK, while the fool in charge of watching the banks in the Labour Party in 2001-2004 has been appointed non-exec Director of the FCA. They all continue to peddle the corporate "no-one could have predicted it" line. Yes they could. They did. The Big Short shows a few smart young men looking into the dodgy dealings pre-bust could see what was going on. So either they are geniuses or the entire banking sector are morons. Or liars. Or corrupt. The young men do not work for the investment banks. Too smart, presumably..... (PS, according to the film, they all knew what was going on, they were all just in thrall to the banks. How things have changed.) |
|
|
|
|
24th February 2016, 11:06 PM
Post
#67
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,676 User: 3,272
|
Well, Cameron has shown his total lack of class again with his infantile attack on whether Corbyn's tie is done up properly. Somebody needs to remind this idiot that he has a referendum to win. In that referendum, he will need the support of a lot of voters who have never voted Tory. He might wish to think about whether today's antics will have done anything to make that more likely.
|
|
|
|
|
24th February 2016, 11:09 PM
Post
#68
|
|
 Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,107 User: 18,639
     |
AND saying he needs a new suit.
The BBC and other Tory propaganda outlets of course focused on the suit comment and not the claims of him selling off the NHS... I loved Corbyn's response: who dresses offensively, me or a man who dresses in suits which cost more than how much ill people are expected to live off a year. |
|
|
|
|
25th May 2016, 04:12 PM
Post
#69
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,173 User: 7,561
   |
In 2010 George Osborne and the Treasury predicted surplus in 2015/2016.
In 2015/2016, new figures out today show that there was a deficit of £76bn. Anybody who believes ANY of the figures that either the treasury or this government predict for the next 5 years is seriously going against all logic IMO! Quite simply our debt driven service economy is well passed its use by date, and given another technical manufacturing recession, wage growth stagnation and record emergency interest rates (despite what the BoE tell us constantly for 2 years is at risk of going up - it won't) for the seventh consecutive year of 0.5%, I don't expect much to change in the next 5 years let alone a surplus by 2019/2020!! |
|
|
|
|
25th May 2016, 06:24 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376
|
Too right. Industry is not supported, and bankers are worshipped. When they bugger off to Europe that's the UK down the tube. We could always, y'know, build shitloads of much-needed houses (though we'd need to employ foreign builders) to boost the economy once the banks have pissed off...oh that's right we can't because the ones on life-support (still) are the British banks and any house-price drop will cause them to plummet even deeper into debt while mortgage-owners having a cushy time of it being supported by taxpayers artificially for nearly a decade will start pouting and vote for someone else.
Contrary to any statements made since 2008, the economy is not healthy and robust, things are not improving and the death by a thousand cuts is gradual and stealthy. On the plus side, the increasing death rate from increasing NHS cutbacks and failures, and suicides from the mentally ill or depressed or addicted should free up a few more houses for wealthy foreigners to buy to rent out 4 to a room. Do I sound cynical? Oh.  Nah, it'll all be fine, nothing to worry about, let our glorious leaders do what they do best, I think of them as Gods
|
|
|
|
|
1st June 2016, 06:49 PM
Post
#71
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376
|
This comment is as a result of the EU campaign, but it almost completely applies to Tory Party and UKIP members - other party members seem relatively sane in comparison to the outrageous lies, promises that can't be fulfilled by the peddlars, twists and distortions of fact.
Now, I have always had a very low opinion of politicians in general, and Tory MP's in particular, but the EU campaign has shown that there is nothing they won't say to win. They even slag off their own party members, facts, figures and opposing views, and will create monsters out of anyone that they think will help the cause. ESPECIALLY the Leave campaign members. So, from this moment onwards, there is nothing that any Tory politician can ever say that will ever be believed again: As shown in their own infighting, they are liars. They don't trust official figures, so why should anyone trust any figures they throw out. They say their fellow Tory Party members are liars, so why should we non-Tory people believe that anything any of them say ever again isn't a lie. Anyone who now believes a single thing they say, right now, is a fool. So, the question is, whatever the outcome of the vote, will we now just see them as liars for decades to come? |
|
|
|
|
14th July 2016, 08:50 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376
|
Its a new Tory era, a new kinder world.
Today: louise mensch slags off mercilessly a father waiting for a major operation for his son because he thought hunt had gone. The operation was cancelled again. She didnt apologise. Pm may appoints liam fox to head the very dept he resigned in disgrace from for taking trade related cushies. Racist boris johnson heads forrign affairs, gets booed at his first meeting at the french embassy. I love the french. Theres still a bit of a hunt about. Leadsome is a climate change ignoramus and loves fox hunting. Makes sense she gets environment. David davis tweeted lots of in dpth knowledge of how the uk can do individual deals on trade with italy poland etc. He so dumb, duhhhhhhh! Trade natch. May has certainly shown everyone that shes against the establishment and for the poor then. We are totally f***ed you know.... |
|
|
|
|
14th July 2016, 08:56 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,107 User: 18,639
|
We just need Corbyn in power!
|
|
|
|
|
15th July 2016, 01:15 PM
Post
#74
|
|
 WINTER IS COMING
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 45,604 User: 88
    |
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/andrea-leadsom_uk_5788a201e4b08078d6e8699c?edition=uk
Andrea Leadsom Says It Is ‘Sensible’ Not To Let Men Look After Children As They May Be Paedophiles Andrea Leadsom has said it would be “sensible” for parents not to employ a male nanny to look after their children because he could be a paedophile. The former Tory leadership candidate, who was yesterday appointed environment secretary by Theresa May, made the comment during the infamous Times interview which is credited with sinking her leadership ambitions “As an employer we’re not, let’s face it, most of us don’t employ men as nannies, most of us don’t,” she told the paper. “Now you can call that sexist, I call that cautious and very sensible when you look at the stats. “Your odds are stacked against you if you employ a man. We know paedophiles are attracted to working with children. I’m sorry but they’re the facts.” The Times released the comments today having not included them in a previous front page story in which Leadsom suggested she would be a better prime minister than May as she had children. Tim Farron, the leader of the Lib Dems, said Leadsom “has let yet another of her masks slip”. “These remarks are stupid, ignorant and not ones any minister should be making. Over the last day Theresa May has shown she is willing to relieve ministers of their duties and she must do so again now,” he said. “It is inconceivable that somebody who holds such offensive, ignorant views should be sat around the cabinet table.” Leadsom told The Times that being a mother “means you have a very real stake in the future of our country” but insisted she was not trying to make it an issue in the Tory leadership election. She dropped out of the race against May a few days later. Yesterday, the new prime minister moved to sweep away many David Cameron and George Gideon Oliver Osborne, son of Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon and Felicity Alexandra Loxton-Peacock, educated at St. Paul's and Magdalen College, Oxford loyalists. May’s spokesperson insisted the Cabinet shake-up was “bold” and necessary after she dismissed Osborne, f***witted Pob lookalike Michael Gove, Oliver Letwin, Nicky Morgan and John Whittingdale. Labour said the promotion of a string of right-wingers contradicted Mrs May’s “warm words” on her entry into 10 Downing Street about seeking to govern “not for a privileged few, but for every one of us”. Scary to think this nutjob could have been running the country 
|
|
|
|
|
15th July 2016, 03:36 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Schlagerdrottningen
Joined: 23 August 2010
Posts: 31,877 User: 11,709
    |
It was probably those CHOICE words that convinced her/those supporting her to pack it in. What a spectacularly stupid and ill informed thing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
19th July 2016, 08:20 PM
Post
#76
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376
|
HAHAHAHAHAHA
http://news.sky.com/story/us-media-puts-bo...mments-10506384 Meanwhile mrs may has already proven her speech was a lie - thats her only speech - by not backing british success against foreign takeovers while the pound is hit. Microchips prob not her strength. |
|
|
|
|
19th July 2016, 09:55 PM
Post
#77
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,676 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Jul 19 2016, 09:20 PM) HAHAHAHAHAHA http://news.sky.com/story/us-media-puts-bo...mments-10506384 Meanwhile mrs may has already proven her speech was a lie - thats her only speech - by not backing british success against foreign takeovers while the pound is hit. Microchips prob not her strength. That record time from speech to contradictory action will take some beating. Still, I'm sure there's a Tory out there who can manage it. |
|
|
|
|
19th July 2016, 10:04 PM
Post
#78
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,173 User: 7,561
|
It was pretty great (but also incredibly cringeworthy) watching Boris squirm in that press conference today - can see now why Theresa put him there: he is totally out of his comfort zone and was really struggling. LOVE IT.
 (Although I appreciate he is making the UK look even more of an laughing stock than we already were - worth it though).Wonder how long he will last. |
|
|
|
|
21st July 2016, 11:51 AM
Post
#79
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376
|
Yes....
Some people seem to think it's OK to make racist remarks akin to using the N word, referring to gollywogs, questioning parentage and motives, for years on end, and that it's all fine because... Trust Me I'm A Journalist, It's What We Do, No Harm Done. Well, apart from Leaving the EU, toppling his own party leaders, lying to the electorate, being a pawn of newspaper tycoon billionaires, a serial adulterer, fathering children outside marriage, doing dodgy building contribution deals for his mates while Mayor, making the UK look stupid and racist to the rest of the world who we now need to love us, what's not to love about the amiable buffoon... Oh he's so funny and loveable, in the same sort of way that a Bond Villain aiming to destroy the world is funny and loveable. Having a smile on your face means you can say anything to anyone and do anything to anyone and it's all OK, cos no harm meant. PS, just in case it's not obvious, I hate the immoral, lying, cold-hearted, rich git. |
|
|
|
|
30th August 2016, 08:12 PM
Post
#80
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,676 User: 3,272
|
Just in case you were in any doubt, there is further evidence today that Cameron has no sense of shame. He has already bowed out with a resignation honours list packed with peerages for leading Tory donors to add to those he created at a record rate while he was in Downing Street. We also know that he awarded his special advisers six months' pay instead of the contractual four months' pay when they lest their jobs in July. He did that despite very strong advice from senior civil servants.
Today it has been revealed that those same special advisers received pay increases of over 20% shortly before they lost their jobs, thereby increasing the size of their pay-off even further. |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 27th April 2024, 02:30 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
