The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[PRESLEY 1,229]

Well done Sunak,  proof of what I have been saying about the Cons all along,  he said it on camera and can't unsay it. Robbing the Poor to Preserve the Rich. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by PRESLEY

[RJRB 688]

5 hours ago, melthebell said:

So looking at the 2 candidates for Tory leader, i keep seeing reports and mentions that Liz Truss is far in the lead of Sunak.

I'm also seeing reports about their economic plans for cutting taxes, helping with the cost of living etc.

 

Truss - I'm seeing is all still about cutting NI, Taxes etc (despite "experts" saying it wont help, infact it might make matters worse, shes now saying it will help against this coming recession)

 

Sunak - says get inflation under control before tax cuts etc.

 

Any ideas? truth? is Truss selling unicorns as ive seen mentioned? is Sunaks plan more grounded and sensible? if so why would Truss still be in front? don't people care about the financial crisis and instead base their choice on other matters?

It’s a simple case that the 2 left standing were selected by the Conservative MPs and their campaigns now are only directed to Conservative Party members.

As Sunak has of necessity had to implement new Socialist policies his stock is low within the Party.

Step forward Truss who can woo the traditionalists but may well fall flat on her face in a General Election.

To my mind Sunak talks more sense in the current state of the economy but it’s not want people want to hear.

His latest comments on re allocating funding also make sense ,but the clumsy way that he revealed it has left him open to criticism from his own party as well as his political opponents.

[PRESLEY 1,229]

2 minutes ago, RJRB said:

It’s a simple case that the 2 left standing were selected by the Conservative MPs and their campaigns now are only directed to Conservative Party members.

As Sunak has of necessity had to implement new Socialist policies his stock is low within the Party.

Step forward Truss who can woo the traditionalists but may well fall flat on her face in a General Election.

To my mind Sunak talks more sense in the current state of the economy but it’s not want people want to hear.

His latest comments on re allocating funding also make sense ,but the clumsy way that he revealed it has left him open to criticism from his own party as well as his political opponents.

It wasn't Clumsy,  it was a Blatent, describing his intentions.

[Guest sibon]

2 hours ago, Dromedary said:

I already have and he didn't say anywhere in that clip that he was diverting funds from deprived areas did he? What has been reported as being allegedly said is different to what he actually did say.

 

He is certainly not that daft to come out with that sort of statement, Truss maybe but Sunak.

 

I just transcribe it for us (think its correct) and it seems it was not what you though he said?

 

Sunak>

 

".... From/for? all of you I managed to start changing the funding formula to make sure that areas like this are getting the funding they deserve. We inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas... that needed to be undone. I started the work of undoing that. I made sure as chancellor across government not only do we increase local government funding......"  

 

Video stopped playing and whatever was said after was conveniently left out. It would have been good to listen to the rest of it as the bits left out could have put the whole in context. I think he also said "but we also need to target all areas in need and not just deprived urban areas."

So, you’ve just watched a video of Sunak saying that he was undoing the formula that directed funding to deprived urban areas, so that he could redirect money to areas like Tunbridge Wells.

 

Then you deny that he said  he was diverting funds from deprived urban areas.

 

I shall leave others to judge your comprehension skills.  
 

 

[Dromedary 166]

46 minutes ago, sibon said:

So, you’ve just watched a video of Sunak saying that he was undoing the formula that directed funding to deprived urban areas,

Correct, well done!

 

Quote

..... so that he could redirect money to areas like Tunbridge Wells.

I'm sure he actually said:

 

"to make sure that areas like this are getting the funding they deserve."

 

Quote

Then you deny that he said  he was diverting funds from deprived urban areas.

Correct again, well done!

 

"We inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas... that needed to be undone."

 

Nowhere does he say he was diverting funds.

 

Quote

I shall leave others to judge your comprehension skills.  

And I will leave other to judge your reading skills and maybe go to the opticians ASAP. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Dromedary
tocorrectapedant

[Guest sibon]

6 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

Correct, well done!

 

I'm sure he actually said:

 

"to make sure that areas like this are getting the funding they deserve."

 

Correct again, well done!

 

"We inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas... that needed to be undone."

 

Nowhere does he say he was diverting funds.

 

 

So.

 

Two simple questions.

 

1. Why did he feel the need to undo the funding formulae?

 

2. What. do you suppose , is the result of the changes to the formulae?

[Delbow 700]

So the people of Stocksbridge voted for money to be taken from their area and given to wealthier areas. What an embarrassment to themselves if they do that again next time.

[RJRB 688]

1 hour ago, PRESLEY said:

It wasn't Clumsy,  it was a Blatent, describing his intentions.

It was a clumsy way inasmuch as the point that I believe he was making was that there are rural and other areas of deprivation away from inner city.deprivation .

NOT saying that his intentions were to take from the deprived and give to the better off.

Clumsy inasmuch as this is how his opponents will use it.

I am happily left of centre and my greater concern is that neither candidate is pushing the levelling up process which was supposedly a major aim of the Johnson Cabinet of which they were members.

I have no expectation that the wealth gap will do anything but widen under a Tory Government and my belief  is that neither candidate can rescue any credibility in the time leading up to the G.E.

[hackey lad 3,976]

6 hours ago, Dromedary said:

I already have and he didn't say anywhere in that clip that he was diverting funds from deprived areas did he? What has been reported as being allegedly said is different to what he actually did say.

 

He is certainly not that daft to come out with that sort of statement, Truss maybe but Sunak.

 

I just transcribe it for us (think its correct) and it seems it was not what you though he said?

 

Sunak>

 

".... From/for? all of you I managed to start changing the funding formula to make sure that areas like this are getting the funding they deserve. We inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas... that needed to be undone. I started the work of undoing that. I made sure as chancellor across government not only do we increase local government funding......"  

 

Video stopped playing and whatever was said after was conveniently left out. It would have been good to listen to the rest of it as the bits left out could have put the whole in context. I think he also said "but we also need to target all areas in need and not just deprived urban areas."

Truth  

4 hours ago, PRESLEY said:

Well done Sunak,  proof of what I have been saying about the Cons all along,  he said it on camera and can't unsay it. Robbing the Poor to Preserve the Rich. 

Obviously , you heard what you want to 

[Anna B 1,414]

We are in such a mess I don't think either Truss or Sunak are capable of sorting it out.

We are in deep deep trouble....

[hackey lad 3,976]

3 hours ago, sibon said:

So.

 

Two simple questions.

 

1. Why did he feel the need to undo the funding formulae?

 

2. What. do you suppose , is the result of the changes to the formulae?

Because It wasn't fair ,  to make it fairer . 

[Guest sibon]

8 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Because It wasn't fair ,  to make it fairer . 

It is certainly a fairground at the moment.

 

Tory policy, I mean.