Quote:
Originally Posted by anne666
|
I would hope you watched the 2010 election as I did and took notice of all the interviews too.
In fact I would love to see a re-run of the election campaign for 2015, pointing out the aim to clear the deficit by 2015,indeed eliminating it was the word used.
I would also like shown David Cameron's pledge that there would be no top down re-organisation of the NHS, another deceit.
However,below is a snippet from 'Conservative home', with the first exchange between Osborne and Johnson,wherein Johnson asks Osborne about the aim of eliminating the deficit to which simply Osborne says yes it is.
Labour would never have applied any spare room tax to the most vulnerable and poorest,genuinely sick, disabled and terminally ill.
They would never have got such a policy through with their own MP's,this Govt has been told repeatedly by carers, the CAB, welfare groups and charities since this came in of the devastation caused to people who are vulnerable as to the bedroom tax.
They take not a bit of notice.
That may possibly,I don't know, be something you can accept and admire but it isn't something I like to see fall on my fellow citizens who are the most in need.
AS for Labour leaving the debt behind, no matter what Govt. was in power that same crash was still going to come and the recession too.
Neither party, the Conservatives nor Labour in the formers 18 unbroken years of power to 1997,then the latters 13 years of power did really anything to regulate the Banking industry.
No matter what party was in power when the crisis and recession hit, just as with most Countries around the world,some negative legacy was going to be left after it.
Labour chose the financial way, they built up the deficit and borrowed,thereby leaving a financial burden on the state,no argument as to that.
They could have done what the Conservatives would have likely done and indeed what they did in the 1980s.
They could have allowed jobs to go left,right and centre and see unemployment rise to ridiculous levels.
Thereby leaving human cost instead of financial cost behind.
It had to be one or the other,I wonder if you would have preferred to see people losing their jobs all over the place like they did in the 80s rather than try another,although costly way but one that would save a great number of jobs and keep people in work.
Both were unsavoury to me but one had to be the result of that recession, the Conservatives if in power would have had no utilities to sell off as they did in the 80s,so again unemployment would have risen likely dramatically and so the welfare costs would have rocketed.
first Commons clash with Alan Johnson
The Treasury Questions exchange, as recorded in Hansard.
Related Articles
Harriet Maltby: The lesson of John Key’s victory: Keep the faith
Iain Dale: Cameron faces the most dangerous moment as leader to date
A close No would open an opportunity for Cameron
Mark Field MP: It’s growth and recovery all right. But how sustainable is it?
Will Osbornomics save Europe?
Alan Johnson, the new Shadow Chancellor: "Will the timing of the spending cuts that are to be announced next week be exactly as laid out in June’s emergency Budget, and will the Chancellor confirm that the aim continues to be that the deficit will be eliminated by 2015?"
George Osborne: "First, I should welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role on behalf of all Government Members. I did the job for five years, and I hope that he does it for even longer than I did. The answer to his question is yes."