[Closed] Plodgate - the anti-tory brigades get their comeuppance

At what point did I start defending the record of the labour party?

just the lesser of two evils IMHO, and presently as good as useless

I just find it offensive what the Tory's are doing. My better half works in the charity sector, and I see the effect daily, of Tory cuts impacting on the day to day existence of the disabled, and the most vulnerable in society. The casual inhumanity of it truly scandalous. And monumentally depressing

And ultimately, its all to fund tax breaks to those who have the most

A recent Tory policy review meeting caught on camera....

Is this a late entry for (comedy) thread of the year?

Is this a late entry for (comedy) thread of the year?

It's no Mammal Top Trumps, I can tell you! 🙂

binners massive +1 to that last post.

It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that people who don't care about such things are just poor quality human beings.

It's no Mammal Top Trumps, I can tell you!

True, but you can't beat a bit of Mitchell and Webb......

is that because there's now more significantly low paid people?

You've heard of the personal allowance?

Have a look at the figures!

its all to fund tax breaks to those who have the most

Shall we look at that one again?

[img] ?w=480&h=216[/img]

I'm not going to defend the current Tory party, why would I?
Perhaps people need to go back and read my first post in this thread before marking me down as a tory fanboy, and look at what point I was making.
Then read binners' first post which proves it. 😆

I've always regarded Tory's as the naturally selfish, who couldn't really care less about those less fortunate than themselves

Cheers to the various contributors to this thread who've demonstrated just how wrong I was. I'm a bit embarrassed about my former opinions. Sorry

[img] [/img]

Well some do say he is a vengeful God...

2 Thessalonians 3:10

[i]For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.[/i]

Proverbs 12:24

[i]The hand of the diligent will rule, while the slothful will be put to forced labour.[/i]

😀

Proverbs 22:7

The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.

Acts 2: 44, 45

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4:32-35

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

gods a commie!

Plodgate - the anti-tory brigades get their comeuppance

The story was broken by the Tory supporting Sun newspaper. It was enthusiastically taken up by other Tory supporting newspapers such as the Daily Mail. The greatest outrage was expressed by the Police Federation - an organisation which isn't noted for having a left-wing agenda. Andrew Mitchell was eventually sacked by the leader of the Tory Party - following pressure from some within the Tory Party, and finally, as we now know, damning evidence provided the Tory Deputy Chief Whip.

But the whole affair has been a conspiracy by "anti-tory brigades" ?

Deuteronomy 5-14
[i]
but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou. [/i]

& your point is Z-11?

I'm going to nick SBob's 'turbo belm' epithet for Christmas.

Binners/Yossarian and whoever else keeps hamming it up with the 'Tories are evil' rubbish - the old false consciousness argument about turkeys voting for Christmas is garbage. Plenty of people on lower than average wages will and have voted for the Tories because they agree with some of the underlying conservative principles: smaller government; that individuals are better able to spend their own earnings than the state doing it; more personal responsibility; and the deeply unfashionable stuff about family etc.

If you keep bleating on about how evil tories enter into politics solely to trample on the faces of the poor then it just illustrates the paucity of your arguments. No-one really believes that Tory politicians perform a daily calculus to determine how best to harm the poor, do they? Isn't there a tiny chance that some Tories enter into politics to try and reduce poverty? Tories are people too!

In any case, back to OP's point, I couldn't agree more. It's strangely satisfying to see the guardian now rotate ferociously between their instinct to blame the police, and their instinct to criticise the Tories.

I love a good bible verse, me 😀

Compassion, charity, forgiveness, redistribution of riches, unselfishness, giving of oneself for those less fortunate, equal respect and unconditional love for the rich/poor/sick/healthy, I could go on... but if He was on the electoral roll today, what would Jesus vote?

Isn't there a tiny chance that some Tories enter into politics to try and reduce poverty?

Post of the week! 😆

The post about military spending in the US acting as a buffer for boom/bust economics and being their version of our public services is a good one....however government spending always has to be paid for, a healthy private sector funds the public sector.

This is basic stuff, when the money runs out cuts have to be made until the private sector is making money again....labour buried their heads in the sand and just kept borrowing.....in a perverse way it would've fascinating if they'd stayed in power to see what they would have done with the economy....cuts are against their nature and the unions pull the strings with regard to pay rises in the public sector under that party....thankfully the British public saw where this was going and made the decision for them.

The trick for any party in government is taxing enough to fund a decent public sector but not too much as to cripple those making the money.

Neither party gets the balance right, labour go on a spending spree every time they get the keys to no.10, their political ideology is to always expand public services....and end up putting the country in debt....while the tories ideology of individual responsibility and small government often involves cutting everything to the bare bones leaving large sections of the public disgruntled at losing what they had under labour.

In a way we could do with a political party that doesnt actually have any particular ideology, a party that just has a basic grasp that 'stuff has to be paid for' and 'dont spend what you dont have'....

....this politics stuff is easy.

Julianwilson - you kind of illustrated my point there.

If you keep bleating on about how evil tories enter into politics solely to trample on the faces of the poor then it just illustrates the paucity of your arguments. No-one really believes that Tory politicians perform a daily calculus to determine how best to harm the poor, do they? Isn't there a tiny chance that some Tories enter into politics to try and reduce poverty? Tories are people too!

It's not that the Tories are evil, they are simply selfish. I'd have a lot more respect for the average Tory if they just admitted that they care about themselves and their families and don't have the time/inclination to worry about anyone else.

You can attempt to dress it up how you like but that's the essential truth of it.

bainbrge: how?

deviant - Member

labour go on a spending spree every time they get the keys to no.10, their political ideology is to always expand public services....and end up putting the country in debt...........while the tories ideology of individual responsibility and small government often involves cutting everything to the bare bones

Link :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html ]Tories vow to match Labour spending[/url]

Quote :

[b][i]The Conservatives sought last night to destroy Labour claims that they would cut public services by issuing a [u]formal pledge to match Gordon Brown’s spending plans[/u]............ George Osborne vowed last night to stick to Gordon Brown’s plan of increasing public spending by 2 per cent in real terms over the next three years[/i][/b]

....this politics stuff is easy.

Agreed. But apparently not quite as easy as you appear to think.

It's not that the Tories are evil, they are simply selfish. I'd have a lot more respect for the average Tory if they just admitted that they care about themselves and their families and don't have the time/inclination to worry about anyone else.

You can attempt to dress it up how you like but that's the essential truth of it.

I'm not sure that's anywhere near an essential truth. I suspect you could make that charge against virtually any human being.

You could play dialectical games like this all day. Tory policy is predicated on the assumption that people are best making decisions for themselves, and Labour policy is predicated on the assumption that people need decisions making for them. Your idea of 'worrying about' someone is another's idea of unnecessary interference.

Julianwilson - I interpreted your post as you implying it was inconceivable that some Tories enter into politics to try and reduce poverty. I could have misinterpreted you though.

Phew for a moment it looked like this was running out of steam!

Good post Ernie, and when you add the actual trend in government spending hopefully we can be relieved of some of the BS arguments about current government policies!

But for those who believe in history finally repeating itself, the last government in the UK to cut government spending was what type and when?

Tory policy is predicated on the assumption that people are best making decisions for themselves, and Labour policy is predicated on the assumption that people need decisions making for them. Your idea of 'worrying about' someone is another's idea of unnecessary interference.

...and meanwhile over the last couple of hundred years in the UK we have seen that "people making decisions for themselves" fairly consistently results in the privileged, well connnected and morally ruthless winning out in time over those born into poverty or raised with more egalitarian (or indeed Christian!) values.

Top heavy/interventionist/'unneccessary influence' and the bloaty but accountable public sector is still the lesser of two evils for many people.

I don't like Cameron, milliband or clegg. I didn't like Blair and I despised brown. I can see a pattern emerging......

Deviant - if you're standing next time, I'll vote for you!

Instead of fannying about with a different balance of public/private provision, I'd hand the entire running of the country, lock stock and barrel, to Tesco. At least They'd sort out the logistics! The problem at the moment is that they're making all the front line staff redundant, while leaving the same bunch of ring-fenced numb-skulls in charge!

I don't like Cameron, milliband or clegg. I didn't like Blair and I despised brown. I can see a pattern emerging......

latent racism?

😉

ernie_lynch

Its the same promise Labour made about Tory spending plans prior to the 1997 election, Blair and Brown said they would stick to Conservative plans during their first term....

Its a way of putting the electorate at ease that there wont be some massive and overnight upheaval under a new government, you're not seriously suggesting core Tory policy would be to spend to Labour's levels are you?!....that link is from 2007, i wonder if the pledge still stands?

You could play dialectical games like this all day. Tory policy is predicated on the assumption that people are best making decisions for themselves

It's supposed to be yes - the reality is very different though.

Julianwilson - I interpreted your post as you implying it was inconceivable that some Tories enter into politics to try and reduce poverty.

Perhaps you could find us a quote from a Tory MP who's said this?

latent racism?

WTF is that graph Zulu those on more than 2 million are paying 30 % more INCOME TAX when the top rate has been cut - can I see the working for that please= can I see it without the changes that Labour promised/did but happened when this govt was in power and the ones the coalition have done
It seems to me to be quite unlikely to be true
Cheers

Isn't there a tiny chance that some Tories enter into politics to try and reduce poverty?

Yes there is a tiny chance of that shame its not a huge chance and their guiding principle

Does [i]anyone[/i] enter politics to reduce poverty?

I reluctantly concede this: If the universe is infinite, and the extrapolation of this is that there exists an infinite number of planets similar to ours except for minute differences, then yes it is just conceivable that somewhere in a galaxy far far away there is a Conservative politician who in his heart of hearts really joined up to reduce poverty.

There is also a small chance that there may be one or two MP's of any political persuasion in the current [s]government[/s] (doh!) house of commons who really really are in it for the poor. Most likely not in Blue flavour though.

you're not seriously suggesting core Tory policy would be to spend to Labour's levels are you?!....that link is from 2007, i wonder if the pledge still stands?

I'm seriously suggesting that your highly simplistic suggestion that public spending rises under Labour, and falls under the Tories, is deeply flawed.

Of course the Tories would like you to believe it, in the same way as they would like to believe that the tax burden reduces under them - another false myth.

But yes, you're right - this politics stuff is easy. Just as soon as you have waded through the bullshit that they expect you to naively believe

😉

teamhurtmore
Thatcher reduced spending from 45% of GDP to 35%....it then rose again during the recession at the end of the 80s to 40% before steadily declining again to 36% around 2000....then after 2000 public spending increased rapidly to 47% where it has been since.

Perhaps this bloke should take the reins as Chancellor again?:

[i]Clarke enjoyed an increasingly successful record as Chancellor, as the economy recovered from the recession of the early 1990s and a new monetary policy was put into effect after Black Wednesday. He was able to reduce the basic rate of Income Tax from 25 to 23%, reduce government's share of GDP, and to reduce the budget deficit from £50.8 billion in 1993 to £15.5 billion in 1997. Clarke's successor, the Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown, continued these policies, which elminated the deficit in 1998 and allowed Brown to record four years of budget surplus' 1998 - £703 million, 1999 - £12 billion, 2000 - £16.7 billion, 2001 - £8.4 billion. Interest rates, inflation and unemployment all fell during Clarke's tenure at HM Treasury. Clarke's success was such that Brown felt he had to pledge to keep to Clarke's spending plans in January 1997, ahead of the election which was due to be held in May 1997 because the Labour Party considered its economic credibility to be its biggest electoral weakness. Clarke's spending limits remained in place for the first two years of the Labour government that was elected in 1997[/i]

Ken Clarke is one of the few Tory MPs I have any respect for. Shame he's been sidelined in favour of idiots like Theresa May.

WTF is that graph Zulu those on more than 2 million are paying 30 % more INCOME TAX when the top rate has been cut - can I see the working for that please

It comes from that notoriously independent and fair journalist Guido Fawkes, so it would be very surprising if it was inaccurate. I mean, even though he's a Tory party strategy advisor, what reason would be have to misrepresent the figures?

The graph also ignores everything apart from income tax of course - guess who a rise in VAT impacts on the most?

The chances of a Tory MP of the present vintage entering parliament to reduce povert is as likely as me entering a pub to enjoy a nice glass of orange juice.

Ken Clarke is a handy fig leaf for these hatchet men. As well as heseltine. Brought in to review business, he's advised a more interventionist stance by government. Chances of that happening? What do you think.....?

Maybe there's a chance they have some compassion, or maybe not

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/13/cameron-pressure-identify-poverty-bill

t comes from that notoriously independent and fair journalist Guido Fawkes,

I cannot believe Zulu would do such a thing

The graph also ignores everything apart from income tax of course - guess who a rise in VAT impacts on the most?

...not to mention rises in fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty. (Which as we all know successive governments of both flavours have so dilligently reinvested in infrastructrure/road safety substance misuse treatment and healthcare/palliative care for those that could be seen as needing, but also potentially paying a lot of extra duty towards it. 👿 )

JY +1 -Guido Fawkes seems just like the Monbiot of the right, except he hides behind a pseudonym and a cartoony picture. I am sure zulu would be just as gracious in pointing out the potential bias in referencing Monbiot too. 😀

Z-11 is always methodical in posting his quotes/graphs/whatever from 'news' sources you wouldn't rely on to tell you if it was night or day. But... He's consistent. What's scary is that he believes this tripe enough to want to pass on their wisdom.

And then goes on to slag off the BBC. You couldn't make it up. Oh.... Actually .... 😆

when the top rate has been cut - can I see the working for that please

Highest rate of income tax under labour = 40p
Current rate under Tories = 50p
Proposed rate after the EVIL TORY tax cut = 45p

So, the top earners are [b]still[/b] paying [b]more[/b] (as a %age) than they ever were under Labour, True?

Personal allowance 2009-10 under Labour: £6,475
Personal allowance 2013-14 under Tories: £9,440

So, the poor are [b]still[/b] paying [b]less[/b] tax under the Tories, True?

Thatcher reduced spending from 45% of GDP to 35%

But how much did GBP increase over and above inflation in that time? so, in [b]real[/b] terms, i.e.. accounting for inflation, did Thatcher increase or cut government spending?

Tell you what - one quick example: did the number of Doctors increase or decrease under Thatcher?

evidence from a right wing polemicist...
'news' sources you wouldn't rely on to tell you if it was night or day...
notoriously independent and fair journalist...

You do understand the concept of ad hominem don't you - now, if he's wrong, fair enough, but you lefties seem to be [b]really[/b] hung up on dismissing evidence by attacking the source, rather than the data - I suppose thats why you've all got into such a twisted knot of lies and confusion with Anthropogenic global warming eh 🙄

alcohol and tobacco duty

So, the worst allegation you can make is that the EVIL TORY taxes will reduce consumption of harmful substances amongst those who are, proportionately, worst affected by them - and this is a bad thing?

Highest rate of income tax under labour = 40p
Current rate under Tories = 50p
Proposed rate after the EVIL TORY tax cut = 45p

So, the top earners are still paying more (as a %age) than they ever were under Labour, True?

Given the tax rate was introduced by labour and has been cut by the Tories I think even Malcom tucker would have difficulty spinning that one. I admire your cheek though for presenting it thus

Personal allowance 2009-10 under Labour: £6,475
Personal allowance 2013-14 under Tories: £9,440

So, the poor are still paying less tax under the Tories, True?

Its a coalition govt and could you remind us which parties policies this was an who oppose a mansion tax
Its quite funny reading tbh

You do understand the concept of ad hominem don't you

- now, if he's wrong, fair enough,

but you lefties seem to be really hung up on dismissing evidence by attacking the source, rather than the data

-

I suppose thats why you've all got into such a twisted knot of lies and confusion with Anthropogenic global warming eh

Is that an ad hominem or just a straw man [ is it just lefties who talk of AGW?] You are getting faster at contradicting yourself these days in your desperate attempt to get a reaction

Bless you and Merry christmas

have a hug from me but no reach round

You miss TJ and ernie more than me dont you

It would be interesting to know how much of this you actually believe but really its quite a hard sell to represent the Tories as the high tax for the rich low tax for the poor party. About as hard as arguing thatcher was a big fan of large govt and public sector growth but you seem to be managing that as well

Your quite funny. it shows that a reasonably bright person can argue just about anything whether it is true or false or whether they believe it

Deviant. That is a separate point. My question was which government cut spending in real or nominal terms. Thatcher did not. I am making the same point as Ernie, the difference between political rhetoric and economic reality is very obvious. Thatcher despite all,her rhetoric, never actually cut spending and surprise, surprise made especially large increases in health and welfare. So much for the Tory accusations thrown about on this thread!

And even more surprising are the trends in government spending between republicans and democrats in the US (google Reagans spending history). Odd world we live in. Oh and Keynes did not advocate governments running budget deficits despite what "Keynesians" like to pretend.

This thread has proved my initial point. It's descended into tribal squabbling about who pays which taxes, when and how much.

None of this is relevant. The fact is that the former chief whip didn't really do anything wrong, and none of you biased lot seem remotely bothered that he's lost his job.

The fact is that the former chief whip didn't really do anything wrong

Didn't he?

Joe - Member

The fact is that the former chief whip didn't really do anything wrong

According to "the former chief whip" he swore at police officers and failed to show them respect.

You can't see anything wrong in that ?

It's descended into tribal squabbling

Have you forgotten your non tribal OP

I think the most interesting thing about the whole saga is how it shoes how sick the anti-Tory mob are. They're also always the first to talk about discrimination or classism, yet they have shown their hands are actually the dirtiest.

Perhaps you just did not set the tone well enough for a non tribal debate?
I means it is clear you are trying to be neutral but you dont quite pull it off

As others note it was not a left wing conspiracy it had nothing to do with the left at all

swore at police officers

and failed to show them respect.

You can't see anything wrong in that ?

it is before the "tax cut" that you present as a Tory tax hike so the tables are now out of date

Might want to check your calendar Junky - its not April 2013 yet, so the table is very much [b]not[/b] out of date 😆

Well, you dind't see anything wrong with Ken fiddling his taxes, so I guess we're all square

Absolutely. I reckon swearing at coppers is well cool.

However Andrew Mitchell doesn't agree with me and claims that he shouldn't have sworn at the police and shown them a lack of respect.

So you really ought to address your comments at Andrew Mitchell Z-11, not me.

Is anyone not concerned that police officers in active service have used their position to push a political agenda?

The former chief whip has admitted swearing at the police which isn't a high point for him, but in their official log the police officers have created a deliberate false impression (lies for a better word) to force a government official from office. This has been apparently been backed up by another lie in an e-mail from an officer in active service pretending to be from a member of the public at the scene, who was no where near at the time of the incident.

So what else would these officers be willing to lie about to get the right result for them? Bit of a troll the last statement, but how would a person without the power and privilege of a tory whip defend themselves against a false accusation from a serving police officer.

The tables were created before the tax cut was announced but you knew that because you checked the source right - it was not even that funny as a reply

In 2012-13 all taxpayers are liable on taxable income other than savings and dividend income at the basic rate of 20 per cent on the first £34,370, 40 per cent over the basic rate limit of £34,370 and 50 per cent over the higher rate limit of £150,000. Dividend
income is charged at 10 per cent up to the basic rate limit of £34,370, 32.5 per cent above £34,370 and 42.5 per cent above £150,000. Savings income is charged at 10 per cent up to the starting rate limit on the first £2,710, at 20 per cent up to £34,370, 40 per
cent above £34,370 and 50 per cent above £150,000.

As you noticed the tories [in a coalition govt] cut the tax whilst raising the tax whilst reducing the burden on the rich to keep them here whilst taxing them more to save us money [ your telegraph link] or sumfink.

Actually start debating or scribble alone - your call But i really cannot be arsed and you have no one left to play with

Is anyone not concerned that police officers in active service have used their position to push a political agenda?

Very much so. There is something particularly sinister about police officers conspiring to destroy the political career of an elected politician, especially through the use of false witnesses and lies.

However the primary aim of this thread appears to be to claim that it was all some sort of left-wing anti-Tory conspiracy (despite the fact that the OP has provided no evidence - are the two who have been arrested left-wingers ?) so understandably the thread has tended to focus on that angle.

I dont think anyone thinks that what the plod have done is a good idea or noble

its seems clear he has been done up like a kipper by some bent coppers for political reasons or other unknown reason
Its is not good PR for the plod and wont be the first time or the last ime some serving officers lie for their own reasons.

That said as ernie notes [ welcome back] the attempt to portray this as a left wing conspiracy is , frankly, ludicrous.

I'm firmly anti-tory, I believe that they should be hunted with dogs.. but I still seem to have come out of this smelling of roses..

ace 😀

That MP looks a nasty piece of work

[quote=hora said]That MP looks a nasty piece of work

You should see the coppers.

I'm with Hora, he's a toffee nosed Tory git who treats the public like something that he's stepped in, in a cash strapped public park that has lost it's ranger due to cuts.