Options

Brilliant Osbourne saves the day.

2

Comments

  • Options
    plateletplatelet Posts: 26,410
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Same old Tory trick. Threaten to do something drastic and stupid, then miraculously see sense and do a U-Turn. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief and they get the media plaudits for "listening to the people". Clever, you have to admit. But how many times are people going to fall for it ?

    It wasn't a U turn though, more a S bend.
  • Options
    andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hmmm. Three terms, two oil wars, one million dead. Thanks Labour.

    Backed by the Tories who are trying to make an even worse mistake in Syria, even with hindsight.
  • Options
    Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Thanks to wise governance of the economy, ... without cutting child tax credits, .

    Don't thank George Osborne. Thank the House of Lords for getting Mr Osborne to change his mind over tax credits.
  • Options
    The infidelThe infidel Posts: 3,826
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    Don't thank George Osborne. Thank the House of Lords for getting Mr Osborne to change his mind over tax credits.

    There is more spare money available so the changes were not necessary afterall. The Loerd undermined tge democratic process and the changes past through the commons twice over.
  • Options
    MorlockMorlock Posts: 3,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There is more spare money available so the changes were not necessary afterall. The Loerd undermined tge democratic process and the changes past through the commons twice over.

    Surely the House of Lords is a part of the democratic process, so the process worked. Not liking the result of the current democratic process does not undermine the democratic process.

    Also, the money does not actually exist, but is expected to materialise, it's just as likely that it won't.
  • Options
    paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    There is more spare money available so the changes were not necessary afterall. The Loerd undermined tge democratic process and the changes past through the commons twice over.

    I remember when the Lords threw out IR35 twice and that was in a Finance Act of 2000 so I never got this talk of some convention that prevented finance proposals. The original proposals while sound in principle the implementation would cause considerable hardship and it was right to question it. That it now transpires that such hardship was not needed because of the lower interest payments and higher expected tax receipts in future mean Osbourne has an extra £27bn - some of which can cover the cost of not implementing the cuts in tax credits.
  • Options
    Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There is more spare money available

    Thank goodness Mr Osborne found the spare money.
    so the changes were not necessary afterall.

    Did Mr Osborne plan to continue with tax credits, regardless of the Lord's vote ?
    The Loerd undermined tge democratic process and the changes past through the commons twice over.

    I am willing to guess there are many hard working families in receipt of tax credit who are relieved with Mr Osborne's decision yesterday.

    Mr Osborne could have used Common's supremacy to overrule the Lords' vote. But he accepted the Lords' decision, however undemocratic it was.
  • Options
    The infidelThe infidel Posts: 3,826
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    andykn wrote: »
    Backed by the Tories who are trying to make an even worse mistake in Syria, even with hindsight.

    The the Tories are responsible for Labours oil wars!? Breaking news here folks!
  • Options
    andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The the Tories are responsible for Labours oil wars!? Breaking news here folks!

    They started it in 91.

    They voted for them too. And are about about to try and get into an even messier conflict in Syria, and that's with the benefit of hindsight to draw on.
  • Options
    paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    andykn wrote: »
    They started it in 91.

    There was at least some justification for the war in 91 - to remove Iraq from Kuwait - that by necessity required an invasion of Iraq as well - but as soon as Iraq's forces had been removed from Kuwait - so the war ended and those areas of Iraq were returned to Iraq.
    They voted for them too. And are about about to try and get into an even messier conflict in Syria, and that's with the benefit of hindsight to draw on.

    Unless you support sexual slavery, murder, theft and burglary why should we not bring the rule of ISIS to an end. Because that are just some of the crimes committed under ISIS - nor are they legitimate rules of the region.

    (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-a-year-of-the-caliphate-day-to-day-life-in-the-islamic-state-where-any-breach-of-restrictive-10348151.html)

    The Vienna Talks mean we are less likely to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq war (or even Libya) as part of that is to manage the post war Syria.
  • Options
    andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There was at least some justification for the war in 91 - to remove Iraq from Kuwait - that by necessity required an invasion of Iraq as well - but as soon as Iraq's forces had been removed from Kuwait - so the war ended and those areas of Iraq were returned to Iraq.
    there was some justification for the second war too, that's why the Tories voted for it.
    Unless you support sexual slavery, murder, theft and burglary why should we not bring the rule of ISIS to an end. Because that are just some of the crimes committed under ISIS - nor are they legitimate rules of the region.

    (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-a-year-of-the-caliphate-day-to-day-life-in-the-islamic-state-where-any-breach-of-restrictive-10348151.html)

    The Vienna Talks mean we are less likely to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq war (or even Libya) as part of that is to manage the post war Syria.
    But Corbyn is being pilloried for supporting the Vienna talks, the Tories want to scupper them by going ahead with air strikes anyway - kill many more civilians and you strengthen ISIS, not weaken it.
  • Options
    MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The the Tories are responsible for Labours oil wars!? Breaking news here folks!

    I know, its laughable isnt it. But apparently Labour are responsible for nothing you should have learnt that by now.
  • Options
    paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    andykn wrote: »
    But Corbyn is being pilloried for supporting the Vienna talks, the Tories want to scupper them by going ahead with air strikes anyway - kill many more civilians and you strengthen ISIS, not weaken it.

    No he is being pilloried for not leading his own cabinet, for unilaterally announcing policy without persuading even them the merits what he is saying.

    Further the Vienna accords are not going to be derailed by bombing ISIS - who are not apart of them and pretty much everyone at the talks agrees that there is no future for Syria with ISIS still around. The talks will continue to ensure a sensible post conflict settlement in Syria.
  • Options
    tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    I remember when the Lords threw out IR35 twice and that was in a Finance Act of 2000 so I never got this talk of some convention that prevented finance proposals. The original proposals while sound in principle the implementation would cause considerable hardship and it was right to question it. That it now transpires that such hardship was not needed because of the lower interest payments and higher expected tax receipts in future mean Osbourne has an extra £27bn - some of which can cover the cost of not implementing the cuts in tax credits.

    Osbourne, is banking on UC to make the cuts though but yesterday hidden away from the lime light UC has more delays. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34936367 . Following Chancellor George Osborne decision yesterday to scrap his tax credit cuts, one of the key ways he is going to meet his manifesto commitment of cutting £12bn from welfare spending is through Universal Credit.

    This is the government's main welfare reform, bringing together six working age benefits into a single monthly payment.

    But it is a programme that has been beset by problems that was further delayed on Wednesday, costing money.
  • Options
    TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,432
    Forum Member
    Thanks to wise governance of the economy, still suffering from the hangover left behind by Gordon Brown's disasterous term as chancellor, Osbourne has managed to ballance the books without cutting child tax credits, the NHS, the Police and defence. The hard left dinosaurs Corbyn and Sturgeon have been humiliated yet again.

    No, Osborne's been shown to be weak because of the U-turns over tax credits and police funding and that has damaged his credibility.
  • Options
    andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    I know, its laughable isnt it. But apparently Labour are responsible for nothing you should have learnt that by now.

    Like I said, they started the one in 91 and voted for the second.
  • Options
    andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No he is being pilloried for not leading his own cabinet, for unilaterally announcing policy without persuading even them the merits what he is saying.
    I'm afraid you're not following what your fellow Tory supporters have been saying here, Corbyn is being pilloried for not wanting to dive in with all guns blazing right away, exactly like ISIS want us to.
    Further the Vienna accords are not going to be derailed by bombing ISIS - who are not apart of them and pretty much everyone at the talks agrees that there is no future for Syria with ISIS still around. The talks will continue to ensure a sensible post conflict settlement in Syria.

    Bombing Syria without the backing of the majority of Syria is likely to do more harm than good once the innocent civilian casualties begin to inevitably mount.
  • Options
    MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    andykn wrote: »
    Like I said, they started the one in 91 and voted for the second.

    Is there any policy that is slightly contentious since WW2 that Labour are responsible for?
  • Options
    andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    Is there any policy that is slightly contentious since WW2 that Labour are responsible for?

    Wasn't founding the NHS contentious at the time?
  • Options
    IWasBoredIWasBored Posts: 3,418
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    :-D entertaining thread
  • Options
    MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    andykn wrote: »
    Wasn't founding the NHS contentious at the time?

    Only with the Doctors - the Tories had proposed a National Health Service as early as 1944.
  • Options
    thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,624
    Forum Member
    andykn wrote: »
    They started it in 91.

    They voted for them too. And are about about to try and get into an even messier conflict in Syria, and that's with the benefit of hindsight to draw on.

    Failure to act in 1991 would have left Saddam with Kuwaiti, and his own oil wealth, and a nuclear and chemical weapons programme. Saudi Arabia would have been defenceless, adding even more oil wealth to Saddam's bank account, and giving him control of the global energy supply and prices.

    The result of not acting would have been almost certainly another Iran -Iraq war with more WMD used . And if someone responsible, like Israel, hadn't stepped in and bombed the nuclear programme again , there would have been at best nuclear weapons now in all the states that have major insurrections going on now, and, at worst, nuclear wastelands where weapons had been used. Saddam would also have continued massacring the Kurds and Shia - until his, mad ,sons replaced him.

    Needless to say, Corbyn wanted nothing done about his friend Saddam either.
  • Options
    thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,624
    Forum Member
    andykn wrote: »
    I'm afraid you're not following what your fellow Tory supporters have been saying here, Corbyn is being pilloried for not wanting to dive in with all guns blazing right away, exactly like ISIS want us to.


    Bombing Syria without the backing of the majority of Syria is likely to do more harm than good once the innocent civilian casualties begin to inevitably mount.

    Hiundreds of thousands are dying anyway. Adding a few terrorists to the total using precision weapons is hardly a negative thing to be doing.
  • Options
    gemma-the-huskygemma-the-husky Posts: 18,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Wednesday was the day the Tories gave up.

    tomorrow, they give in to the doctors.

    the day after, stealth taxes start going up.

    car tax, petrol tax, insurance tax, council tax, travel tax.
  • Options
    paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    andykn wrote: »
    I'm afraid you're not following what your fellow Tory supporters have been saying here, Corbyn is being pilloried for not wanting to dive in with all guns blazing right away, exactly like ISIS want us to.

    They will have to speak for themselves then. I don't think we can wait - ISIS are killing people now, they are enslaving people now, people are fleeing them now. That does not mean Corbyn is completely wrong - we will need soldiers on the ground. We will need the Vienna talks to come up with a post conflict rebuilding plan.

    You however are wrong that the Talks will collapse because one of the best air forces in the world has joined the fight against ISIS in Syria - the people talking in Vienna are pretty much all against ISIS - so agreement they need to be defeated is universal - the issue is what to do afterwards.
Sign In or Register to comment.