"What I can tell you is, any cabinet minister, if I win the election, who comes to me and says: "Here are my plans," and they involve front-line reductions, they'll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again. After 13 years of Labour, there is a lot of wasteful spending, a lot of money that doesn't reach the front line."
Since then, 5,870 NHS nurses, 7,968 hospital beds, a third of ambulance stations, 5,362 firefighters and 6,800 frontline police officers have been cut.
"What I can tell you is, any cabinet minister, if I win the election, who comes to me and says: "Here are my plans," and they involve front-line reductions, they'll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again. After 13 years of Labour, there is a lot of wasteful spending, a lot of money that doesn't reach the front line."
Since then, 5,870 NHS nurses, 7,968 hospital beds, a third of ambulance stations, 5,362 firefighters and 6,800 frontline police officers have been cut.
They should be really, really embarrassed about Esther McVey - that's one thing they can't blame on Labour.
She's obviously the blond bit of totty that the Tories imagine can 'relate to common people' with her broad regional accent. They've wheeled her out as damage limitation against the bumbling Duncan Smith. I very much doubt she is the type of person most Tories would want as a dinner party guest.
Did labour remove all their material from the web archive too?
The Internet Archive's policy of removing entire sites based on the presence of a robots.txt file is nothing to do with the Conservatives - it is a side effect of not wanting crawlers to go over their site.
They could have implemented it so that it just stopped archiving, but they chose the destructive approach.
The Internet Archive's policy of removing entire sites based on the presence of a robots.txt file is nothing to do with the Conservatives - it is a side effect of not wanting crawlers to go over their site.
They could have implemented it so that it just stopped archiving, but they chose the destructive approach.
Why don't the conservative party want crawlers to go over their site?
Why don't the conservative party want crawlers to go over their site?
Why don't many sites want crawlers to go over their site? It's not just the Conservatives who do it.
Reasons for disallowing it include bandwidth costs, server load, privacy (probably not good for a political party's public documents), there are many reasons. We don't know why they did this.
But my point is that you can't really blame the Conservatives for a third party's heavy handed approach to dealing with robots.txt - there's no reason why archive.org has to delete everything, it is just something they chose to do.
Whichever party is deleting their previous speeches, it's surely folly in this day and age. Someone will always have them archived and be able to make them available to the public.
Shame on those defending this orwellian-style web purge.
So you'll be criticising Labour for doing it too then as its on ceefax (or whatever they call it theses days) saying they have admitted today doing the same, and that they do it on a regular basis. On BBC website too it seems
So you'll be criticising Labour for doing it too then as its on ceefax (or whatever they call it theses days) saying they have admitted today doing the same, and that they do it on a regular basis. On BBC website too it seems
Why don't many sites want crawlers to go over their site? It's not just the Conservatives who do it.
Reasons for disallowing it include bandwidth costs, server load, privacy (probably not good for a political party's public documents), there are many reasons. We don't know why they did this.
But my point is that you can't really blame the Conservatives for a third party's heavy handed approach to dealing with robots.txt - there's no reason why archive.org has to delete everything, it is just something they chose to do.
Do you honestly believe that?!
By pure coincidence the same deletion has happened to their YT site. I guess 'you 'can't really blame the Conservatives for a third party's heavy handed approach' for that either.:rolleyes:
Comments
No cuts to front-line services
"What I can tell you is, any cabinet minister, if I win the election, who comes to me and says: "Here are my plans," and they involve front-line reductions, they'll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again. After 13 years of Labour, there is a lot of wasteful spending, a lot of money that doesn't reach the front line."
Since then, 5,870 NHS nurses, 7,968 hospital beds, a third of ambulance stations, 5,362 firefighters and 6,800 frontline police officers have been cut.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/pre-election-pledges-tories-are-trying-wipe-internet
Disgusting.
Nobody.Takes.You.Seriously.
Did labour remove all their material from the web archive too?
She's obviously the blond bit of totty that the Tories imagine can 'relate to common people' with her broad regional accent. They've wheeled her out as damage limitation against the bumbling Duncan Smith. I very much doubt she is the type of person most Tories would want as a dinner party guest.
The Internet Archive's policy of removing entire sites based on the presence of a robots.txt file is nothing to do with the Conservatives - it is a side effect of not wanting crawlers to go over their site.
They could have implemented it so that it just stopped archiving, but they chose the destructive approach.
Why don't the conservative party want crawlers to go over their site?
Why don't many sites want crawlers to go over their site? It's not just the Conservatives who do it.
Reasons for disallowing it include bandwidth costs, server load, privacy (probably not good for a political party's public documents), there are many reasons. We don't know why they did this.
But my point is that you can't really blame the Conservatives for a third party's heavy handed approach to dealing with robots.txt - there's no reason why archive.org has to delete everything, it is just something they chose to do.
So you'll be criticising Labour for doing it too then as its on ceefax (or whatever they call it theses days) saying they have admitted today doing the same, and that they do it on a regular basis. On BBC website too it seems
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24942040
If they do it in government, whilst under the same leader that got elected off those promises, yes, very much so.
Do you honestly believe that?!
By pure coincidence the same deletion has happened to their YT site. I guess 'you 'can't really blame the Conservatives for a third party's heavy handed approach' for that either.:rolleyes: