"we're all in this together"

[llcoolphil]

We have limited social housing with limited funding.

[llcoolphil]

Maybe I don't... When someone says "social housing" I think of council owned houses ? Am I getting the wrong end of the stick ?

Edited October 19, 2010 by llcoolphil

[worm]

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

Edited October 20, 2010 by worm

[llcoolphil]

should have... could have been bigger

[lost]

I see London is still going to get cross rail whilst the rest of the country gets cuts to the network rail subsidy which will be made up with fare rises, Seems we've got to protect our investment in the city now..

[llcoolphil]

you have to wonder...

Robert Pestons take on it

[lost]

I'd expect any contract to have a standard get out clause, I wonder if that's incompetence or malice on Labours part, can flog them 2nd hand to some dictatorship?

[dakyras]

Nightmare for RAF Kinloss.

f**king Labour c**ts.

[RABun]

They won't suffer. McDonalds has a very competitive entry wage.

[llcoolphil]

I'd expect any contract to have a standard get out clause, I wonder if that's incompetence or malice on Labours part, can flog them 2nd hand to some dictatorship?

[coma girl]

They're soldiers, they can take it. I thought they were 'ard.

Military needs stripping down.

[fur_q]

/

Edited October 19, 2010 by fur_q

[eFestivals]

So you agree with the outcome the ideology brings about but not the ideology that brings it about! Brilliant!

Here's a new word for you: pragmatism.

Contrary to what you prefer to think, that's driving my view far more than any ideological stance.

Stopping CB payments to those earning more than 44K

you think ideology isn't behind that?

It's the cover that's being used as justification for the decimation of everything else.

Why do you think that was the ONLY thing to be announced early?

So what would be the different reasons why you think ID cards should be scrapped and why David Camoron thinks ID cards should be scrapped?

him: interference of the state.

me: simply a waste of money that won't achieve any of what is claimed for them. I believe that any state has an absolute right to interfere where it thinks necessary.

Spot the difference? Or do you still have your blinkers on?

What would be the different reasons why you think there shouldn't be a third runway at Heathrow and why David Camoron thinks there shouldn't be a third runway at Heathrow?

I've no idea on his reasons for this one, so can't answer that.

And as Ive pointed out on these boards on a number of occasions, the decision to vote Lib Dem at the election has turned out to be a catastrophic mistake. Billy Bragg and millions of others say the same, so Im not unique. Though given your support for the Lib Dems before the election and the opportunity that coalition government would bring about for the introduction of PR, Im not sure you should consider yourself blameless.

Utterly incorrect on my views all round.

I don't see the coalition as "a catastrophic mistake" - I continue to see it as of great benefit to the country.

No, I've not lost my marbles. However much they become the tories poodles, they're still succeeding in reigning back the tories in some areas. Given that the only realistic possibility of a different election result would have been an outright tory victory, reigning them back a little is of far greater benefit than them not being reigned back at all.

My biggest disappointment with the LibDems is their sell-out on PR. I'm of the opinion that they could have stuck to their guns and got a referendum on PR, because ultimately it's up to the electorate to decide how MPs should be elected and not politicians, and that argument could have been used to get the tories to back down.

I note that the thread on Higher Education appears to have a number of people completely agreeing with me, not to mention someone's girlfriend by PM! A thread I note your absence from since I pointed out the fallacy of your argument that young people are being put off Higher Education by the simple fact that there are more people in Higher education this year than ever before and 180,000 people disappointed they couldn't join them. Not really conclusive evidence of not being smart nor of buying arguments hook, line and sinker really.

Just to point out how f**king screwed up your thinking is....

I agree 100% with the thing you're sooooo proud () of others having agreed with you over. But unlike you, I'm not happy to abandon a generation of young people in favour of your ideological stance: here's that word again: pragmatism.

The "fallacy" you have pointed out comes from such narrow-minded thinking on your part that you're unable to understand what others have said back to you, as you prove here again. The 'success' of higher education you approve of is only worthy of approval via your complete ignoral of its indisputable attached failure.

I remain attached to the idea of equality. You've sold out.

Edited October 20, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

If it was driven by ideology alone then you wouldn't agree Neil because you are oppossed. So your agreeing is evidence of that policy being either nowt to do with ideology or your agreement with some of the ideology.

FFS, get a grip on common logic. It's quite embarrassing to read your misplaced smugness.

The tory actions are driven fully by ideology. It just so happens that the circumstances of the country they've got along with power matches their ideological aims.

My acceptance of some of the actions they might take is driven only by pragmatism, a recognition that spending needs to be cut back to an extent.

Those with more than half a brain have worked that out for themselves.

[sifi]

450,000 jobs to go...

[RABun]

ding ding round 345

Everyone ready for a day of Oafish agreeing with everything Osbourne comes out with and everyone else calling him a twat.

I was reading thw Guardian this morning

If Labour's spending was so wildly out of control, why did the Tories promise to match their plans, pound for pound, all the way until November 2008? Why didn't Osborne and Cameron howl in protest at the time?

Could it be because things were not actually that bad? A quick look at the figures confirms that, until the crash hit in September 2008, the levels of red ink were manageably low. The budget of 2007 estimated Britain's structural deficit – that chunk of the debt that won't be mopped up by growth – at 3% of gross domestic product. At the time, the revered Institute for Fiscal Studies accepted that two-thirds of that sum comprised borrowing for investment, leaving a black hole of just 1% of GDP. If the structural deficit today has rocketed close to 8%, all that proves is that most of it was racked up dealing with the banking crisis and subsequent slump – with only a fraction the result of supposed Labour profligacy. After all, even the Tories would have had to pay out unemployment benefit.

[5co77ie]

So what i'm actually asking is, are any of these cuts really necessary?

[5co77ie]

You are acting like the twat. I see you have totally ignored my earlier post directed at you.

Edited October 20, 2010 by 5co77ie

[sifi]

Fixed for you

Wow, look at me, correcting other peoples English

[5co77ie]

The police federation has warned that 40,000 officers might go

[RABun]

So people with no kids should not expect any help?

[RABun]

You have the nerve to call me all sorts of names and you haven't even got a clue about what I have supported, what I stand for or what I believe in...

The cut in Corporation Tax DOES benefit me...

I said generally I support universal benefits but at this moment in time I can't argue against CB being cut for my family... I have spoken about the way it is being cut... I said I AM HAPPY not to get it...

My daughter will got to University regardless, there will always be a way... but what is wrong in speaking out against something which will effect me ? I shouldn't be a punch bag...

You say capping immigration is sensible... Its short sighted...

and I don't buy into ANY propaganda... I grew up and still know a lot of people that take the piss...

You keep commenting on me like you know me when in reality you haven't got a f**king clue...

TRY READING WHAT I WRITE...

Now explain how you justify my opinion is "RIGHT WING"...

Edited October 20, 2010 by RABun

[worm]

Here's a new word for you: pragmatism.

Contrary to what you prefer to think, that's driving my view far more than any ideological stance.

Edited October 20, 2010 by worm

[5co77ie]

Sports teaching special status for schools to be abolished - ahhh I remember there being no sports about when I were a lad.

Loss of approx £130,000 per mid sized school (schools with specialist sports status will lose the extra cash of £129 per pupil). Justified on the grounds of costs and because the Government wants to focus on academic disciplines such as literacy and numeracy. Looks like nanny state worries about kids getting unfit and fat are over.

Edited: added per pupil

Edited October 20, 2010 by 5co77ie

[RABun]

No you haven't justified anything... You have made a load of generalised comments and then stated a load of false bollocks about apparently what I support and have backed.