Labour left whole country in the lurch

Labour supporter C Oliver’s playground jibe that cuts in school and hospital budgets led to the 1997 Conservative General Election defeat is wholly false (letter, May 19). For example, spending on the NHS under the last Conservative administration increased in real terms by 60 per cent.

Also, if Mr Oliver wishes to play the class war card, he would do well to remember that, under Mrs Thatcher, opportunity was provided for the first time for working-class people to buy their council homes – a huge leg-up for people whom Labour previously ignored.

Finally, Mr Oliver’s claim that Labour stands for a more humane society is completely unbelievable.

Just how humane was it for the last Labour government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion accompanied by a note from the outgoing Treasury Minister saying “Sorry, we’ve spent all the money”?

COLIN SMITH, Totton Branch, New Forest East Conservatives.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:15pm Thu 31 May 12

On the inside says...

Except it didn't did it. A 60% increase in real terms on the NHS budget would have been unaffordable for any government. Stick to your little enclave of conservatism in the New Forest along with the badgers and the yokels and leave the adding up to others.
Except it didn't did it. A 60% increase in real terms on the NHS budget would have been unaffordable for any government. Stick to your little enclave of conservatism in the New Forest along with the badgers and the yokels and leave the adding up to others. On the inside
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Thu 31 May 12

Linesman says...

Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not.

We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house.

There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council.

Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.'

The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings.

Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time.

Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services.

No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches.

Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke.

If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic?

Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from?

Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.
Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not. We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house. There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council. Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.' The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings. Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time. Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services. No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches. Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke. If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic? Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from? Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned. Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:38pm Thu 31 May 12

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not.

We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house.

There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council.

Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.'

The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings.

Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time.

Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services.

No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches.

Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke.

If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic?

Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from?

Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.
The quote about selling off council homes is a joke!
Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't.
the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace".
A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour.
So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not. We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house. There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council. Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.' The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings. Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time. Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services. No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches. Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke. If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic? Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from? Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.[/p][/quote]The quote about selling off council homes is a joke! Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't. the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace". A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour. So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS? loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:58am Fri 1 Jun 12

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not.

We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house.

There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council.

Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.'

The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings.

Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time.

Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services.

No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches.

Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke.

If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic?

Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from?

Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.
The quote about selling off council homes is a joke!
Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't.
the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace".
A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour.
So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS?
If I had lived in a council house and had been given the chance to buy at a knock-down price, then although I do not agree with the sell off, I would have bought.

Why?

Because that was the law at the time, and I would be a fool not to take advantage of a bargain.

With regard your wanting to know who lied.

Well, for a start, Cameron promised to be Tough on Crime, and we have seen a massive cut in police funding and a cut in police numbers, so perhaps you should start at Westminster if you want to know WHO LIED?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not. We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house. There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council. Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.' The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings. Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time. Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services. No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches. Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke. If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic? Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from? Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.[/p][/quote]The quote about selling off council homes is a joke! Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't. the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace". A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour. So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS?[/p][/quote]If I had lived in a council house and had been given the chance to buy at a knock-down price, then although I do not agree with the sell off, I would have bought. Why? Because that was the law at the time, and I would be a fool not to take advantage of a bargain. With regard your wanting to know who lied. Well, for a start, Cameron promised to be Tough on Crime, and we have seen a massive cut in police funding and a cut in police numbers, so perhaps you should start at Westminster if you want to know WHO LIED? Linesman
  • Score: 0

11:54am Fri 1 Jun 12

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not.

We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house.

There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council.

Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.'

The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings.

Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time.

Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services.

No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches.

Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke.

If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic?

Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from?

Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.
The quote about selling off council homes is a joke!
Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't.
the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace".
A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour.
So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS?
If I had lived in a council house and had been given the chance to buy at a knock-down price, then although I do not agree with the sell off, I would have bought.

Why?

Because that was the law at the time, and I would be a fool not to take advantage of a bargain.

With regard your wanting to know who lied.

Well, for a start, Cameron promised to be Tough on Crime, and we have seen a massive cut in police funding and a cut in police numbers, so perhaps you should start at Westminster if you want to know WHO LIED?
I didn't ask about Cameron .I wasn't talking about National Government I was talking about your beloved Labour Council so don't try to avoid the question.
WHO LIED IN Southampton Labour Council?
I feel anyone buying a council property to only disagree with the selling off of council stock is a total hypocrite!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not. We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house. There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council. Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.' The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings. Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time. Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services. No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches. Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke. If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic? Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from? Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.[/p][/quote]The quote about selling off council homes is a joke! Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't. the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace". A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour. So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS?[/p][/quote]If I had lived in a council house and had been given the chance to buy at a knock-down price, then although I do not agree with the sell off, I would have bought. Why? Because that was the law at the time, and I would be a fool not to take advantage of a bargain. With regard your wanting to know who lied. Well, for a start, Cameron promised to be Tough on Crime, and we have seen a massive cut in police funding and a cut in police numbers, so perhaps you should start at Westminster if you want to know WHO LIED?[/p][/quote]I didn't ask about Cameron .I wasn't talking about National Government I was talking about your beloved Labour Council so don't try to avoid the question. WHO LIED IN Southampton Labour Council? I feel anyone buying a council property to only disagree with the selling off of council stock is a total hypocrite! loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Fri 1 Jun 12

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not.

We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house.

There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council.

Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.'

The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings.

Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time.

Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services.

No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches.

Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke.

If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic?

Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from?

Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.
The quote about selling off council homes is a joke!
Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't.
the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace".
A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour.
So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS?
If I had lived in a council house and had been given the chance to buy at a knock-down price, then although I do not agree with the sell off, I would have bought.

Why?

Because that was the law at the time, and I would be a fool not to take advantage of a bargain.

With regard your wanting to know who lied.

Well, for a start, Cameron promised to be Tough on Crime, and we have seen a massive cut in police funding and a cut in police numbers, so perhaps you should start at Westminster if you want to know WHO LIED?
I didn't ask about Cameron .I wasn't talking about National Government I was talking about your beloved Labour Council so don't try to avoid the question.
WHO LIED IN Southampton Labour Council?
I feel anyone buying a council property to only disagree with the selling off of council stock is a total hypocrite!
I know you didn't, because it did not suit your political outlook.

We do not know if anyone lied in Southampton's Labour Council, or whether there was a misunderstanding between members.

However, We DO KNOW that David Cameron promised to be Tough On Crime when he was electioneering, and we DO KNOW that he has cut the Police budget, that has resulted in job losses in the Police Force since he has come to power.

No misunderstanding with that is there?

When BT, Gas, Electricity etc etc were privatised, I did not agree with the sell-off, and although I was in a position to buy shares, I did not.

IF I had lived in a council house, and it were offered to me at a great deal less than the market value, I would have bought it because, although I do not need shares, I do need somewhere for my family to live.

There are many laws that I do not like, but I have to live with them and obey them.

I have always believed that Council House tennants should have their house on a lease - maybe 10 years - after which it is reviewed.

In those 10 years, it would give time for the children to be attending school, the mother returning to work and the father to have had a few promotions and in a better financial position.

10 years on an economic rent, with maintenance provided, should give the opportunity to save the deposit for a house on the open market, freeing up the Council House for another young family.

That was and is my idea of an ideal situation.

Thatcher sold off council houses as a vote catcher, but made no provision for the money raised to be put into building more council houses, which is why there is virtually no movement on the council housing waiting list.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not. We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house. There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council. Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.' The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings. Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time. Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services. No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches. Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke. If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic? Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from? Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.[/p][/quote]The quote about selling off council homes is a joke! Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't. the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace". A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour. So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS?[/p][/quote]If I had lived in a council house and had been given the chance to buy at a knock-down price, then although I do not agree with the sell off, I would have bought. Why? Because that was the law at the time, and I would be a fool not to take advantage of a bargain. With regard your wanting to know who lied. Well, for a start, Cameron promised to be Tough on Crime, and we have seen a massive cut in police funding and a cut in police numbers, so perhaps you should start at Westminster if you want to know WHO LIED?[/p][/quote]I didn't ask about Cameron .I wasn't talking about National Government I was talking about your beloved Labour Council so don't try to avoid the question. WHO LIED IN Southampton Labour Council? I feel anyone buying a council property to only disagree with the selling off of council stock is a total hypocrite![/p][/quote]I know you didn't, because it did not suit your political outlook. We do not know if anyone lied in Southampton's Labour Council, or whether there was a misunderstanding between members. However, We DO KNOW that David Cameron promised to be Tough On Crime when he was electioneering, and we DO KNOW that he has cut the Police budget, that has resulted in job losses in the Police Force since he has come to power. No misunderstanding with that is there? When BT, Gas, Electricity etc etc were privatised, I did not agree with the sell-off, and although I was in a position to buy shares, I did not. IF I had lived in a council house, and it were offered to me at a great deal less than the market value, I would have bought it because, although I do not need shares, I do need somewhere for my family to live. There are many laws that I do not like, but I have to live with them and obey them. I have always believed that Council House tennants should have their house on a lease - maybe 10 years - after which it is reviewed. In those 10 years, it would give time for the children to be attending school, the mother returning to work and the father to have had a few promotions and in a better financial position. 10 years on an economic rent, with maintenance provided, should give the opportunity to save the deposit for a house on the open market, freeing up the Council House for another young family. That was and is my idea of an ideal situation. Thatcher sold off council houses as a vote catcher, but made no provision for the money raised to be put into building more council houses, which is why there is virtually no movement on the council housing waiting list. Linesman
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Fri 1 Jun 12

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not.

We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house.

There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council.

Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.'

The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings.

Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time.

Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services.

No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches.

Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke.

If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic?

Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from?

Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.
The quote about selling off council homes is a joke!
Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't.
the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace".
A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour.
So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS?
If I had lived in a council house and had been given the chance to buy at a knock-down price, then although I do not agree with the sell off, I would have bought.

Why?

Because that was the law at the time, and I would be a fool not to take advantage of a bargain.

With regard your wanting to know who lied.

Well, for a start, Cameron promised to be Tough on Crime, and we have seen a massive cut in police funding and a cut in police numbers, so perhaps you should start at Westminster if you want to know WHO LIED?
I didn't ask about Cameron .I wasn't talking about National Government I was talking about your beloved Labour Council so don't try to avoid the question.
WHO LIED IN Southampton Labour Council?
I feel anyone buying a council property to only disagree with the selling off of council stock is a total hypocrite!
I know you didn't, because it did not suit your political outlook.

We do not know if anyone lied in Southampton's Labour Council, or whether there was a misunderstanding between members.

However, We DO KNOW that David Cameron promised to be Tough On Crime when he was electioneering, and we DO KNOW that he has cut the Police budget, that has resulted in job losses in the Police Force since he has come to power.

No misunderstanding with that is there?

When BT, Gas, Electricity etc etc were privatised, I did not agree with the sell-off, and although I was in a position to buy shares, I did not.

IF I had lived in a council house, and it were offered to me at a great deal less than the market value, I would have bought it because, although I do not need shares, I do need somewhere for my family to live.

There are many laws that I do not like, but I have to live with them and obey them.

I have always believed that Council House tennants should have their house on a lease - maybe 10 years - after which it is reviewed.

In those 10 years, it would give time for the children to be attending school, the mother returning to work and the father to have had a few promotions and in a better financial position.

10 years on an economic rent, with maintenance provided, should give the opportunity to save the deposit for a house on the open market, freeing up the Council House for another young family.

That was and is my idea of an ideal situation.

Thatcher sold off council houses as a vote catcher, but made no provision for the money raised to be put into building more council houses, which is why there is virtually no movement on the council housing waiting list.
Get it right this was about this city & also the previous Government. As for Maggie did she or John Major leave a note saying the cupboard was bare & there was no money for the incoming Labour Government?
As for council houses if you were anything but blinded by Labour you would know there are many people who could/should buy a property but don't as the repairs & modernisation get's done by the council.
you have single people living in two bedroom houses why?
Council housing is a good thing but is being abused.
If a person can afford to buy they shouldn't be living in a council property when there are families living in blocks of flats.
Single people ( Young) should be in flats & older people who want to downsize should be allowed.An older lady was living in a 4 bedroom house in Lordshill but it took four years to downsize her accommodation hows that right?
with checking on tenants & making sure the right people are in the right property you could cut the waiting list drastically
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not. We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house. There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council. Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.' The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings. Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time. Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services. No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches. Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke. If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic? Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from? Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.[/p][/quote]The quote about selling off council homes is a joke! Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't. the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace". A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour. So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS?[/p][/quote]If I had lived in a council house and had been given the chance to buy at a knock-down price, then although I do not agree with the sell off, I would have bought. Why? Because that was the law at the time, and I would be a fool not to take advantage of a bargain. With regard your wanting to know who lied. Well, for a start, Cameron promised to be Tough on Crime, and we have seen a massive cut in police funding and a cut in police numbers, so perhaps you should start at Westminster if you want to know WHO LIED?[/p][/quote]I didn't ask about Cameron .I wasn't talking about National Government I was talking about your beloved Labour Council so don't try to avoid the question. WHO LIED IN Southampton Labour Council? I feel anyone buying a council property to only disagree with the selling off of council stock is a total hypocrite![/p][/quote]I know you didn't, because it did not suit your political outlook. We do not know if anyone lied in Southampton's Labour Council, or whether there was a misunderstanding between members. However, We DO KNOW that David Cameron promised to be Tough On Crime when he was electioneering, and we DO KNOW that he has cut the Police budget, that has resulted in job losses in the Police Force since he has come to power. No misunderstanding with that is there? When BT, Gas, Electricity etc etc were privatised, I did not agree with the sell-off, and although I was in a position to buy shares, I did not. IF I had lived in a council house, and it were offered to me at a great deal less than the market value, I would have bought it because, although I do not need shares, I do need somewhere for my family to live. There are many laws that I do not like, but I have to live with them and obey them. I have always believed that Council House tennants should have their house on a lease - maybe 10 years - after which it is reviewed. In those 10 years, it would give time for the children to be attending school, the mother returning to work and the father to have had a few promotions and in a better financial position. 10 years on an economic rent, with maintenance provided, should give the opportunity to save the deposit for a house on the open market, freeing up the Council House for another young family. That was and is my idea of an ideal situation. Thatcher sold off council houses as a vote catcher, but made no provision for the money raised to be put into building more council houses, which is why there is virtually no movement on the council housing waiting list.[/p][/quote]Get it right this was about this city & also the previous Government. As for Maggie did she or John Major leave a note saying the cupboard was bare & there was no money for the incoming Labour Government? As for council houses if you were anything but blinded by Labour you would know there are many people who could/should buy a property but don't as the repairs & modernisation get's done by the council. you have single people living in two bedroom houses why? Council housing is a good thing but is being abused. If a person can afford to buy they shouldn't be living in a council property when there are families living in blocks of flats. Single people ( Young) should be in flats & older people who want to downsize should be allowed.An older lady was living in a 4 bedroom house in Lordshill but it took four years to downsize her accommodation hows that right? with checking on tenants & making sure the right people are in the right property you could cut the waiting list drastically loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Fri 1 Jun 12

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not.

We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house.

There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council.

Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.'

The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings.

Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time.

Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services.

No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches.

Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke.

If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic?

Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from?

Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.
The quote about selling off council homes is a joke!
Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't.
the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace".
A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour.
So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS?
If I had lived in a council house and had been given the chance to buy at a knock-down price, then although I do not agree with the sell off, I would have bought.

Why?

Because that was the law at the time, and I would be a fool not to take advantage of a bargain.

With regard your wanting to know who lied.

Well, for a start, Cameron promised to be Tough on Crime, and we have seen a massive cut in police funding and a cut in police numbers, so perhaps you should start at Westminster if you want to know WHO LIED?
I didn't ask about Cameron .I wasn't talking about National Government I was talking about your beloved Labour Council so don't try to avoid the question.
WHO LIED IN Southampton Labour Council?
I feel anyone buying a council property to only disagree with the selling off of council stock is a total hypocrite!
I know you didn't, because it did not suit your political outlook.

We do not know if anyone lied in Southampton's Labour Council, or whether there was a misunderstanding between members.

However, We DO KNOW that David Cameron promised to be Tough On Crime when he was electioneering, and we DO KNOW that he has cut the Police budget, that has resulted in job losses in the Police Force since he has come to power.

No misunderstanding with that is there?

When BT, Gas, Electricity etc etc were privatised, I did not agree with the sell-off, and although I was in a position to buy shares, I did not.

IF I had lived in a council house, and it were offered to me at a great deal less than the market value, I would have bought it because, although I do not need shares, I do need somewhere for my family to live.

There are many laws that I do not like, but I have to live with them and obey them.

I have always believed that Council House tennants should have their house on a lease - maybe 10 years - after which it is reviewed.

In those 10 years, it would give time for the children to be attending school, the mother returning to work and the father to have had a few promotions and in a better financial position.

10 years on an economic rent, with maintenance provided, should give the opportunity to save the deposit for a house on the open market, freeing up the Council House for another young family.

That was and is my idea of an ideal situation.

Thatcher sold off council houses as a vote catcher, but made no provision for the money raised to be put into building more council houses, which is why there is virtually no movement on the council housing waiting list.
Get it right this was about this city & also the previous Government. As for Maggie did she or John Major leave a note saying the cupboard was bare & there was no money for the incoming Labour Government?
As for council houses if you were anything but blinded by Labour you would know there are many people who could/should buy a property but don't as the repairs & modernisation get's done by the council.
you have single people living in two bedroom houses why?
Council housing is a good thing but is being abused.
If a person can afford to buy they shouldn't be living in a council property when there are families living in blocks of flats.
Single people ( Young) should be in flats & older people who want to downsize should be allowed.An older lady was living in a 4 bedroom house in Lordshill but it took four years to downsize her accommodation hows that right?
with checking on tenants & making sure the right people are in the right property you could cut the waiting list drastically
Yes, it was about this city, but it was NOT about a promise made to the electorate, it is what is alleged to have been said by two politicians, reported in a newspaper with a certain political bias.

No. Neither Thatcher nor Major left such a note, and do you not find it strange that the note that is supposed to have been left by the outgoing Labour government has never seen the light of day? IF it actually existed in fact instead of in someone's imagination, don't you think it reasonable to assume that a photograph of it would have appeared by now?

Of course you don't, because it would not fit in with what you want to believe.

It is now TWO years since Cameron became Prime Minister. In that time, despite the alleged 'bare cupboard' he has been able to lend money to the Irish Republic to help bail them out, and also invest money in the IMF.

Not bad for someone who took over a country with no money.

What a pity he is responsible for taking the country into a double-dip recession.

I agree with the comments about council housing, which is why I said that I was in favour of a fixed-term tenancy.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Selling off council houses may have been acceptable if others were built to replace them, but they were not. We, the tax payers, paid for the council houses to be built, and the lucky ones who happened to be in them at the time of the sell off got them for a knock-down price, and the council housing stock decreased. Not good news for those who were waiting for a council house. There was, of course, an ulterior motive. By selling off the council houses, their maintenance was no longer the responsibility of the council. Colin Smith asks, 'Just how humane was it for the last Labour Government to leave office having saddled future generations with a debt of £1 trillion.' The Labour Government's humanity expresses itself when the banks and building societies were bailed out, which prevented many families losing their homes by having their morgages called in and also losing their savings. Perhaps Mr Smith could inform us what alternative policy his Conservative party proposed at the time. Of course, it was not just banks and building societies that had to be bailed out, but also many councils who had invested their money in Icelandic banks. Those councils had to be bailed out so that they could continue to pay staff and provide essential services. No voice of disapproval from the opposition benches. Although there was not one word of disapproval from the opposition when the government took this action, when they came to power, they claimed that the country was broke. If that were true, where the hell did the money come from that Dodgy Dave used to help bail out the Irish Republic? Where did the money that later invested in the IMF come from? Let's face it, with the current government's policy of putting people out of work, it cannot have been money that has been earned.[/p][/quote]The quote about selling off council homes is a joke! Two doors down from me they bought their council home their new neighbours wanted to buy their's but now Labours in they can't. the guy who bought said "They shouldn't sell council homes it's a disgrace". A bit rich after he'd bought it & he votes Labour. So come on you two Labour People WHO LIED? Barnes-Andrews? Morrell? OR WILLIAMS?[/p][/quote]If I had lived in a council house and had been given the chance to buy at a knock-down price, then although I do not agree with the sell off, I would have bought. Why? Because that was the law at the time, and I would be a fool not to take advantage of a bargain. With regard your wanting to know who lied. Well, for a start, Cameron promised to be Tough on Crime, and we have seen a massive cut in police funding and a cut in police numbers, so perhaps you should start at Westminster if you want to know WHO LIED?[/p][/quote]I didn't ask about Cameron .I wasn't talking about National Government I was talking about your beloved Labour Council so don't try to avoid the question. WHO LIED IN Southampton Labour Council? I feel anyone buying a council property to only disagree with the selling off of council stock is a total hypocrite![/p][/quote]I know you didn't, because it did not suit your political outlook. We do not know if anyone lied in Southampton's Labour Council, or whether there was a misunderstanding between members. However, We DO KNOW that David Cameron promised to be Tough On Crime when he was electioneering, and we DO KNOW that he has cut the Police budget, that has resulted in job losses in the Police Force since he has come to power. No misunderstanding with that is there? When BT, Gas, Electricity etc etc were privatised, I did not agree with the sell-off, and although I was in a position to buy shares, I did not. IF I had lived in a council house, and it were offered to me at a great deal less than the market value, I would have bought it because, although I do not need shares, I do need somewhere for my family to live. There are many laws that I do not like, but I have to live with them and obey them. I have always believed that Council House tennants should have their house on a lease - maybe 10 years - after which it is reviewed. In those 10 years, it would give time for the children to be attending school, the mother returning to work and the father to have had a few promotions and in a better financial position. 10 years on an economic rent, with maintenance provided, should give the opportunity to save the deposit for a house on the open market, freeing up the Council House for another young family. That was and is my idea of an ideal situation. Thatcher sold off council houses as a vote catcher, but made no provision for the money raised to be put into building more council houses, which is why there is virtually no movement on the council housing waiting list.[/p][/quote]Get it right this was about this city & also the previous Government. As for Maggie did she or John Major leave a note saying the cupboard was bare & there was no money for the incoming Labour Government? As for council houses if you were anything but blinded by Labour you would know there are many people who could/should buy a property but don't as the repairs & modernisation get's done by the council. you have single people living in two bedroom houses why? Council housing is a good thing but is being abused. If a person can afford to buy they shouldn't be living in a council property when there are families living in blocks of flats. Single people ( Young) should be in flats & older people who want to downsize should be allowed.An older lady was living in a 4 bedroom house in Lordshill but it took four years to downsize her accommodation hows that right? with checking on tenants & making sure the right people are in the right property you could cut the waiting list drastically[/p][/quote]Yes, it was about this city, but it was NOT about a promise made to the electorate, it is what is alleged to have been said by two politicians, reported in a newspaper with a certain political bias. No. Neither Thatcher nor Major left such a note, and do you not find it strange that the note that is supposed to have been left by the outgoing Labour government has never seen the light of day? IF it actually existed in fact instead of in someone's imagination, don't you think it reasonable to assume that a photograph of it would have appeared by now? Of course you don't, because it would not fit in with what you want to believe. It is now TWO years since Cameron became Prime Minister. In that time, despite the alleged 'bare cupboard' he has been able to lend money to the Irish Republic to help bail them out, and also invest money in the IMF. Not bad for someone who took over a country with no money. What a pity he is responsible for taking the country into a double-dip recession. I agree with the comments about council housing, which is why I said that I was in favour of a fixed-term tenancy. Linesman
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree