The Mail vs The Coalition Govt

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:56 pm

Socket wrote:

Unfortunately the Tories and the press seem to forget that public sector cuts do actually involve putting people out of work, usually low paid people in areas with little alternative employment (including London.)

Which fits in with the "pen-pusher" stuff from earlier about them not being actual people but faceless bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to dole out massive benefits to every asylum seeker while ensuring that the middle classes are repressed by an oppressive tax regime.

That image I've seen used on the news of the Homepride man in bowler hat but without facial detail is really how a lot of people see public sector employees, they don't think about doctors, nurses, policemen, members of the armed forces etc. Personally I'd love to say "we'll slash army pay" and see if the Mail and Sun are still so keen on public sector cuts.

AOB · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:59 am

Can someone tell me if I'm misunderstanding this paragraph on the following Telegraph article? Not a rhetorical question BTW.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... ficit.html

Quote:

Yesterday, the Treasury set out the framework for a review of all government spending. The official document stated it would "comprehensively examine areas such as social security, tax credits and public service pensions".

Plans for "savings and reform in these areas" would be unveiled later this year.

It is the first time that the welfare system – such as child benefit, disability payments and unemployment benefits – has been identified as a target for cuts. Freezing all benefit payments would save more than £4 billion a year.

So no disability money for the disabled?!! How are they going to live? No Jobseekers allowance would mean no housing benefit therefore a million plus homeless and no benefits agency staff required at all? Does that last sentence mean freezing RAISES or does it effectively mean "none at all"?

Fflaps · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:12 am

I would assume they mean freezing raises, but seeing as it's basically the Tories I can't be sure...

AOB · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:15 am

Yeah it's raises but only I could only find Wales Online who explained it clearly. I had mental pictures of mass homelessness and anarchy. As you say as it's the Tories you never know, so you can't blame me for thinking that. :wink:

AOB · **Posted:** Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:17 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -axed.html

Unemployment 'will soar to 3m' as 725,000 public sector workers lose their jobs

Quote:

Spending cuts will push up unemployment to almost three million as vast numbers of public sector workers lose their jobs, experts warn today.
The respected Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development claims a massive 725,000 state jobs - nearly one in eight - will be axed.

Chief economic adviser Dr John Philpott says state workers, who currently account for one in five of the workforce, should brace themselves for compulsory redundancies, vacancies left unfilled and recruitment freezes.

Many, he says, face little prospect of finding another job with a bleak prediction that unemployment will soar to 2.95million.

That last sentence...............

"Back to the 80s"? Nah. It'll be worse. How much influence have you got Clegg? None? Tell them to go on their own and try and form a minority Government. See how long they last.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:18 am

It's as though Keynes had never lived...

Or, for that matter, Beveridge.

Timbo · **Posted:** Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:20 am

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Or, for that matter, Beveridge.

I'd love one, cheers. Milk and two. :lol:

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:21 am

That'll rot your teeth, and you're not even Scottish.

IanC · **Joined:** Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:30 pm **Posts:** 1404

*sigh*. Great, I found it hard enough getting a 6 months long job under the Labour government. I've got no chance with this "coalition" government, have I?

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:05 am

You might be OK. I just hope it isn't as bad as Thatcher's carnage of the young.

AOB · **Posted:** Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:51 am

I reckon this week has provided arguably the most depressing political news since Thatcher's day. You took depressing political news for granted then- remember every Friday at the end of the ITN News at Ten when they did a round up of the thousands and thousands of jobs lost that week. That might have to make a comeback.

davidjay · **Joined:** Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:24 pm **Posts:** 3932

AOB wrote:

I reckon this week has provided arguably the most depressing political news since Thatcher's day. You took depressing political news for granted then- remember every Friday at the end of the ITN News at Ten when they did a round up of the thousands and thousands of jobs lost that week. That might have to make a comeback.

And we haven't even got 15 seconds of Charles & Di being greeted by cheering crowds of colonials to finish with.

AOB · **Posted:** Wed May 11, 2011 1:35 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rsary.html

Are Cameron and Clegg cracking up? The Coalition appears to crumble on first anniversary

Quote:

Fifty-three per cent think its record so far has been disappointing, according to a ComRes survey for ITV News.

But if you think something has been disappointing don't you have to have had some optimistic expectation to start with? Or maybe this means more than half interviewed think it's been even shitter than they anticipated. And the other 47% thought it's been as equally shit as they thought it would be. :lol:

oboogie · **Posted:** Wed May 11, 2011 1:59 pm

AOB wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385808/Are-David-Cameron-Nick-Clegg-cracking-coalition-celebrates-anniversary.html

Are Cameron and Clegg cracking up? The Coalition appears to crumble on first anniversary

Quote:

Fifty-three per cent think its record so far has been disappointing, according to a ComRes survey for ITV News.

But if you think something has been disappointing don't you have to have had some optimistic expectation to start with? Or maybe this means more than half interviewed think it's been even shitter than they anticipated. And the other 47% thought it's been as equally shit as they thought it would be. :lol:

Exactly, it's all about expectations. A while ago a Mail poll asked "Which Prime Minister were you most disappointed by: John Major or Gordon Brown?". Well as I expected John Major to be shite (and wasn't disappointed) I wasn't in the slightest "disappointed" by him. Whereas I hoped that Brown would better than he turned out to be so , yes I found that "disappointing".

That does not translate into 'Major was a better PM than Brown'.

satnav · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2011 9:45 am

Looks like the Mail on Sunday is still gunning for Chris Huhne

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387216/Huhnes-damning-phonecall-Cabinet-Ministers-attempt-silence-claims-tried-dodge-speeding-points.html][/url]

I did try and post a comment suggesting that listening to Chris Huhnes phone calls was something you would expect from the News of the World rather than the Mail but looks like the moderators have blocked it.

The Mail vs The Coalition Govt

Who is online