reasons to hate the tories

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

r.i.p. britain another600,000 on the dole plus the knock on effects 20% vat in january, rising train fares,over seas aid raised? just dont get it,lets let prisoners out early so much for party of law order ohh and less police on the streets and more criminals on the street making soldiers who gave there all in war redundant.same old tories doing the opposite of what they say they stand for.

It's retro.

Eighties style.

Agadoo-doo-doo, push pineapple, shake the money tree.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by archiveuk

1) IF US HAD NOT INVADED civil war would still have happened. Saddam was not going to live forever and sectarian division was only getting more intense while he was in power. (2) Other countries even less concerned with the quality of life of ordinary Iraqis were already trying to invade Iraq. Saudi Arabia Iran and Turkey, have all made attempts (3) and there would have been nothing to stop them if coalition forces hadn’t been present. If the US had not been there far more people would have died.

Can't agree with that at all !

1) Civil war wouldn't of happened as Saddam, his extended family & those loyal to him brutally & violently battered down any resistance or opposition to his rule. The link gives you an idea of what these people were like & Uday was the more likely successor had Saddam been taken out.

2) These other Countries ? When was this ? Iran fought with Iraq in the 80's & both parties came out of it badly mauled. Saudi couldn't care less( they just wanted to see him get slapped but didn't want to be seen as doing it themselves as Iraq was also part of the Arab nations=Brothers) The Saudis supported the co-coalition with food fuel & staging areas & the Turks are part of the NATO alliance. The only reason the Turks went in to Northern Iraq was to chase down militant Kurds !

3) So that negates your third point.

Uday Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti

You are unfortunately seeing things from an armchair & trust in the bumpf fed to you by papers & News bulletins, which do tend to be biased one way or another, don't be so ready to believe everything you hear or read.

[cmonstanley]

al queada would have started a civil war to get to the oil pipes.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

al queada would have started a civil war to get to the oil pipes.

...and Al Jarreau would have sung the theme tune.

Retro.

Told you, it's all the fashion.

[cmonstanley]

shadduppa ya face

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

al queada would have started a civil war to get to the oil pipes.

Absolute rubbish , the Baath party under Saddam Hussien was secular , much like Nassar in Eygpt, Assad in Syria and Ataturk 40 years earlier, all who did their best to rid their countries of the Mullahs influence , and bring their countries into the 20th century.
Al Queda/Taliban was a creation of the US (Ronald Reagan) and Saudi Arabia to fight the Russians in Afghanistan to stop them moving further south thru Balucistan and gain a warm water port near the entrance to the Gulf. A bad geo-political move which turned out to bite the hand that fed it , do you honestly belive 9/11 would have ever happened if the Russians had been allowed to stay in Afghanistan .
Point number 2 , who do you think backed Saddam Hussien during the Iran Iraq war , we did the west ... why ? because he was fighting against the Islamic fundamentalists (Mullahs) who run Teheran .

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

al queada would have started a civil war to get to the oil pipes.

That my friend is pap ! I don't think you realise just who & what Al Quaida are, for a clearer view read SJ's post or see below,

Al-Qaeda — Infoplease.com
Al-Qaida

[DaveinGermany]

Incidentally the 2 major conflicts of the late 20th Century, which were successful executed by the British Military were the Falklands & the Gulf in 1991, both were authorised & presided over by a Tory Government. Furthermore the Gulf War of 1991 had full UN backing, unlike the later debacle of 2003, do we need reminding of who's hand had control of UK's forces at this time ?

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by jaysay

First of all for heavens sack get the year right, then we can talk, if you can be bother to post a correct date doubt anything else is even close, which I know it isn't

Following my terrible faux-pas, I'll concede immediate defeat over my accusations that the Hyndburn Tories are about to leave us with a debt-ridden council, the full scale of which is not yet known.

Obviously I'm just harbouring under a biased Labour viewpoint and the fact that whoever is in control next year will find themselves financially screwed is just political spin.

I'll get my coat but do me a favour and spare a thought for my ill-chosen words next May when the truth comes out.

Still, we can always blame 13 years of Labour government, that'll help.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Well I would point out that the cuts are 1% more per year than Labour had planned to make had they won the election.

I was wrong. Labour planned to cut deeper than the Conservatives did yesterday.

cmonstanley it's all very well criticising every aspect of the spending reductions, but what would you do instead? The coalition are in office and have to deal with the enormous deficit they've inherited or the whole country will go to the wall.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I was wrong. Labour planned to cut deeper than the Conservatives did yesterday.

cmonstanley it's all very well criticising every aspect of the spending reductions, but what would you do instead? The coalition are in office and have to deal with the enormous deficit they've inherited or the whole country will go to the wall.

Few would disagree that spending reviews are required but the speed and severity of the Conservative cuts is the main bone of contention.

Labour recognised the problems and had planned a slow steady program over a few years but this £83bn package is going to do a lot more harm simply by the way in which it is being implemented.

Certain aspects don't seem to have been properly thought through, either. Closing the Woodford plant 18 months early won't save that much and is making life for those workers far harder.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

Few would disagree that spending reviews are required but the speed and severity of the Conservative cuts is the main bone of contention.

Labour recognised the problems and had planned a slow steady program over a few years but this £83bn package is going to do a lot more harm simply by the way in which it is being implemented.

Certain aspects don't seem to have been properly thought through, either. Closing the Woodford plant 18 months early won't save that much and is making life for those workers far harder.

Ken, Labour planned to cut deeper and just as fast. They've changed their mind now they've become the opposition. It's easier for them to criticise the coalition that way.

If you don't cut fast you are choosing to give money to bankers in interest payments rather than spending the money educating our children or putting police on the streets.

What you're saying is a lot more pain but over a longer time. We're already paying £120 million a day in interest payments. The scale of the debt is colossal and it's only going to get worse if we don't start reducing our deficit quickly.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Ken, Labour planned to cut deeper and just as fast. They've changed their mind now they've become the opposition. It's easier for them to criticise the coalition that way.

If you don't cut fast you are choosing to give money to bankers in interest payments rather than spending the money educating our children or putting police on the streets.

What you're saying is a lot more pain but over a longer time. We're already paying £120 million a day in interest payments. The scale of the debt is colossal and it's only going to get worse if we don't start reducing our deficit quickly.

So perhaps you could explain, Andrew, why the government are increasing the overseas aid budget by 37%? We all have to tighten our belts, while we give money to India - a country rich enough to fund its own space programme? Yeah, that makes sense.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Ken, Labour planned to cut deeper and just as fast. They've changed their mind now they've become the opposition. It's easier for them to criticise the coalition that way.

I'm not disagreeing with cuts and neither are Labour but I think you better go and double check the timescales that have been put forward because Gordon Brown was saying that Conservative proposals were too quick even before the elections.

Yes, we need to bring the deficit down and quickly but not too quickly. It's like paying off a loan in one month but leaving nothing in the kitty to keep you going, you simply replace one problem with another.

There's no pleasant way out of this but an even keel is better than choppy waters.

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by gynn

Closer to home, it means Hyndburn Council reducing its budget by 7.1% per annum over 4 years.

That's another problem were going to inherit. Somehow I think I've seen this film before.Local Government has come out if this spending review very badly. Soft target for the Government.