"we're all in this together"

[5co77ie]

Friends of the Earth to take 'greenest government' to court, (although not over them lying about the moniker):

http://www.newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=32&listitemid=4481

In a letter sent to climate change minster Greg Barker, the environmental campaigning charity pointed out that FiT levels have been set out by the government, with a clear statement that they will not be reviewed - let alone reduced - until 2013.

As such, FoE claims that any change to tariff levels before this review could lead to a legal challenge from councils, community groups or small-scale energy producers who have planned and invested in renewable electricity infrastructure expecting that published tariff levels will not change.

FoE policy and campaigns director, Craig Bennett, commented: "If Ministers try to cut agreed payments for green electricity generation they may find themselves in court.

"The government has clearly set out tariff levels for the first three years of the scheme, and councils, community groups and businesses have planned and invested accordingly. Reviewing tariff rates could undermine these plans."

[RABun]

Why do i only get one negative a day?

I need to vent my spleen on the minus one button

[5co77ie]

Looks like pensioners are going to get it to - with a drastic reduction in cold weather payments. Some sources are saying it will be axed entirely.

[5co77ie]

Just out of interest will the cuts in those employed by the armed forces be taken up by the private sector - as the coalition promises all jobs cuts will be offered by private business? Are there enough 'private armies' in the UK for 7,000 troops, 5,000 RAF and 5,000 Navy personnel?

[eFestivals]

Do you EVER actually read what people say? Ive asked you to name the ideology that drives it - you haven't.

Do you EVER actually read what people say? I've told you at least twice (and you've certainly acknowledged one of them, if not both).

Toryism. "I'm alright jack, f**k the rest of you".

Has it gone in this time?

I've also pointed out that your opposition to them is no less ideological, which puts you in no better place to criticise.

1. my view matches the majority opinion within the country (if the polls can be believed of course. But there's nothing to remotely suggest support the other way).

2. I am not using one bullshit idea to try to justify another bullshit idea to the slightly dim and very dim, as the tories are.

Ive asked you to show me where labour has a coherent alternative - you haven't because they haven't.

Until tomorrow, you can't show any tory coherent alternative - you can't because they haven't.

Until tomorrow, the situation is equal with both: a commitment to cut at a certain level, with the details of what is to be cut to be decided following a spending review.

And actually, even after tomorrow, you can't say where the tories will cut. They'll have only agreed how much each department will be cut, but not how the cuts will be achieved within those departments (with some exceptions).

But anyway, am I saying "do what Labour say"? Nope, not once.

And, finally, if you can show me where I have said nothing about them is ideologically driven, I invite you to do so. By simply ignoring these question, you don't make yourself more right you know!

you might not have explicitly said "they are not ideologically driven", but you've certainly disputed my words when I've explicitly said they are being ideologically driven and not driven by the deficit.

[Ed209]

Are you still here? Decided the baby can fend for itself and doesn't need any help from you?

[5co77ie]

Solicitors hint at changes to legal system to be announced tomorrow:

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=17137&c=1&eclipse_action=getsession

[llcoolphil]

1. my view matches the majority opinion within the country (if the polls can be believed of course. But there's nothing to remotely suggest support the other way).

Edited October 19, 2010 by llcoolphil

[5co77ie]

Thousands of people gathered in London to lobby their MPs in protest against the massive cuts expected in tomorrow's comprehensive spending review.

The rally was part of UNISON's Million Voices campaign. Here, UNISON members who came to protest from around the country speak up about why they need to be heard.

Pete Middleton, PCSO from Northampton "We look after poor and vulnerable people in our society and we're here to speak up for people who can't speak up for themselves. Do I agree with a Robin Hood tax? You bet your life I do."

Sheridan Buckley from Shropshire "Shropshire county council is one of the main employers in Shropshire. If these cuts take place then local shops will suffer, local services will suffer, the local economy will suffer."

Carol Davies from North Staffordshire community health branch "Stoke on Trent has two trusts in a small radius and they're big employers. Given that the area's quite deprived anyway any cuts will be damaging. We're here to fly our flags high."

Jennifer Jones, Pembrokeshire county branch "We're from a rural community – the local economy will be shot to bits with these cuts. And it's the highly vulnerable people in our community who'll be affected."

Jackie Lewis from Lambeth "We've built alliances locally and we've managed to save our local 1 o' clock clubs. What we're concerned about now is our ALMO, Lambeth Living, and our children's and young people's services."

Dawn Palmer-Ward, Coventry "We need to save public services in Coventry – once they've been taken apart it'll take 100 years to get them back."

Natasha Lawrence, Julie Gilham and Christina Tasker from Hertfordshire local government "We don't want to see social workers going because we don't want another baby P in Hertfordshire."

Andy Beech, Howard Paterson and Ray Burns from Liverpool John Moores University "We're worried about the £4.2bn cuts to university funding."

Mary Adewunmi from University College London Hospital "We’re worried about the cuts and we're still worried about Agenda for Change. I'm a domestic supervisor and we've seen quite a lot of cuts already."

Chris Hall-Maiden, Whittington Hospital, North London "We think what they're doing is unfair. Get money from the banks. Get money from tax. Get money from a Robin Hood tax. Then they can start on us."

Sue Lucas, Dorset county council "Dorset's a very rural county with lots of working people. We're worried. We're very worried indeed."

Sara Richardson, Coventry council "The job losses we're seeing will hit vulnerable people and vital services."

Sue Orwin, Torbay health "We've got £11.5m to save at Torbay. We're working with the organisation to avoid redundancies. The health white paper really worries me though."

Jonathan Lee from Hastings and Eastbourne healthcare "We're here to protest against the cuts."

[5co77ie]

So when some specific cuts are proposed by both the government and the opposition, are they both proposing the exact same action through the exact same ideological positon? Or by the exact same economic position? Or is one proposing the exact same action for ideological reasons and one for economic reasons? And if this is the case, how do we determine what is ideologically driven and what is economically driven, given the action and outcome are identical?

[eFestivals]

Which makes your opposition no less ideologically drive and leaves us with one ideology opposing a different ideology

But still not equal.

One view has the support of the country, and the other view doesn't. In a democracy, which should win out?

So when some specific cuts are proposed by both the government and the opposition, are they both proposing the exact same action through the exact same ideological positon? Or by the exact same economic position? Or is one proposing the exact same action for ideological reasons and one for economic reasons? And if this is the case, how do we determine what is ideologically driven and what is economically driven, given the action and outcome are identical?

If they proposed all of the exact same things for the exact same reasons, only then is the exact same ideological proposition. But as they didn't ever do such a thing, it's not.

And so all you say here is an irrelevant - and an irrelvance that's come from nothing I've said.

Great avoidance you've managed there of what I said.

[llcoolphil]

The Torygraph suggest maybe Labour have a better idea!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/maryriddell/8071851/Spending-Review-2010-We-should-all-fear-the-darkness-David-Cameron-included.html

social housing will be hit so hard that the National Housing Federation is already warning that plans to build 270,000 affordable new homes may be shelved. Waiting lists stand at 4.5 million, construction is at its lowest level since the Second World War and the Coalition risks repeating the errors of the Eighties and Nineties, when similar cutbacks incubated the divisions that fracture today's communities. Rancour about immigration, rooted not in racism but in resentment about lack of jobs and homes, will be hard-wired into society by what the Chancellor has to say tomorrow....

...Yesterday Alan Johnson, a shadow chancellor whose rudimentary grasp of macroeconomics looks more attractive by the day, offered his prescription. Mr Johnson's upbeat version involves extracting £7.5 billion from the bankers, endorsing some cutbacks and reducing departmental spending by £27 billion less than the government...

Edited October 19, 2010 by llcoolphil

[lost]

Problem here is clearly house prices and has been building up for a decade. At the end of the nineties I remember speaking to a bloke from the local housing association and in his words "they couldn't give council houses away" Also around that time I had a couple of girlfriends who didn't go to uni, one bought a 1 bed cottage on an order pickers salary whilst the other bought a 2 bed terrace working on the supermarket checkouts, now house prices are out of their reach council houses are completely over subscribed here.

We need to start building more houses, simple, doesn't mater if some NIMBY's view gets concreted over,70% of the letters in my local paper were objecting to housing developments this week alone. Kicking people out of council houses won't make any savings if they are then paid housing benefit to go into some private landlords pocket.

[eFestivals]

We need to start building more houses, simple, doesn't mater if some NIMBY's view gets concreted over,70% of the letters in my local paper were objecting to housing developments this week alone.

It's only going to get worse if the tory's plans go thru - they're going to require 80% support from 'locals' for any new developments.

Kicking people out of council houses won't make any savings if they are then paid housing benefit to go into some private landlords pocket.

Yep - which gets to show it's not about any cost saving, but presenting the idea that some in society are scum.

[llcoolphil]

But still not equal.

One view has the support of the country, and the other view doesn't. In a democracy, which should win out?

Edited October 19, 2010 by llcoolphil

[eFestivals]

Aye but you've told us often enough that the country is so stupid it gets the government it deserves. Or are they only stupid when they disagree with you? And tell me the last time we elected a government that had the support of most of the country.

Yep, the country gets the govt it deserves - if people vote stupid, they get stupid. Some are just starting to wake up to the fact that they've been stupid.

And that fact gets to show that irregardless of what I think, they know for themselves that they're stupid.

The last question is irrelevant. We need to attack what happens, and not docilely accept wrongdoing.

What a load of nonsense.

so do point out what I said was nonsense, rather than chuck in even more irrelevances.

What have I avoided? Ive said previously that some of these cuts are ideologically driven but have gone a step further and said in some areas (ID cards being a case in point), less state interference in everyday life is not a bad thing. You simply oppose everything, even the bits you agree with!

OK, you only do empty headed nowadays. I'll leave you to it.

[llcoolphil]

so do point out what I said was nonsense, rather than chuck in even more irrelevances.

Edited October 19, 2010 by llcoolphil

[pehaw]

The BBC licence fee is to be frozen for the next six years at £145.50

[eFestivals]

I pointed out that you are opposing tory ideology whilst at the same time completely, totally and utterly agreeing with one of the outcomes of that ideology.

Correct - I'm perhaps agreeing with the outcome in some circumstances.

Another example would be that you and Camoron both agreed that a third runway shouldn't be built at Heathrow. Now if, as you claim, EVERYTHING that this government does is simply driven by ideology, you must also accept that you agree at times with that ideology, because you agree entirely with the action the government has taken.

2+2 doesn't always equal 5 you know.

Alternatively, you could accept that some of the actions this government takes isn't ideologically driven and that is why you agree with them.

well, if you're able to show me something you say that isn't, we can have a conversation about whether you're right or not.

What you cant have, however, is that everything the government does is ideologically driven and that you disagree entirely with that ideology, because I have given you two very concrete examples where you and the government are in total agreement.

in agreement on outcome, yes - in agreement on why that action needs to be taken, not necessarily.

Whilst I accept that they are there to be used, you do understand that simply adding a smiley to your posts doesn't give it any greater credibility don't you?

yes. Likewise, you turning your brain off doesn't give your words any greater credibility.

Yeah Id want to run away if I was shown to be posting obvious and clear contradictions too

Since election day, none at all that I've noticed.

For things you said prior to that, just about everything contradicts with what you say now.

I'm disappointed. You've swallowed it hook line and sinker. I thought you were smarter than that.

(and don't go pretending that this is a view that unique to me - you know it's not).

[eFestivals]

The BBC licence fee is to be frozen for the next six years at £145.50

Dave Moron: "is that alright Rupert? Or would you like me to do more to help you take over UK broadcasting for you making me PM?"

[pehaw]

Dave Moron: "is that alright Rupert? Or would you like me to do more to help you take over UK broadcasting for you making me PM?"

[eFestivals]

Yes Dave, can you force those damned commies to also fund that blasted World Service and S4C while your at it. There's a good chap.

Yep, anything that chops at the knees of the BBC is a good thing in the eyes of the REAL prime minister.

Meanwhile - even before this announcement - the BBC has been providing more TV content and output than Sky manages, plus all of the radio stuff (including local stuff) and the websites and the iPlayer - all with less money than Sky need for their output.

Yeah, the BBC is a rip-off, and the private sector always does things cheaper.

[dakyras]

I presume college kids will still get EMA - it's just those who don't do A levels that'll suffer most.

[llcoolphil]

Correct - I'm perhaps agreeing with the outcome in some circumstances.

[Kowalski]

Nightmare for RAF Kinloss.

f**king Labour c**ts.