By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Thanks for the link and summary. I should probably add at this stage I don't need persuading. My difference in opinion was only insofar as one may confidently draw conclusions from the source material available, in respect to what he said in his speech - the possible sentence(s) before our clip begins, which would likely prevent us from deciding the context for ourselves.
I understand why there is no goodwill for respecting these boundaries, why the strength of opinion is what it is and why the context behind his words is considered immaterial by most on this thread. Policy alterations that result in our least deprived areas receiving funding at the expense of others is clearly indefensible, irrespective of how Rishi described the policy in his speech (of which we've seen a carefully clipped excerpt).
It's not a difference of opinion, you're denying facts. Facts which back up that you're making an assumption which goes against them. He was addressing a local group, in an area which is the least deprived in a wealthy part of the country. The thread has gone beyond the clip anyway so that line doesn't stack up at all.
Rural poverty has been an issue for decades, which makes the fact that those areas vote Tory even more baffling. The idea that Tunbridge Wells is in the midst of it, or even able to be considered as part that issue makes little sense, before being presented with evidence.
Even odder that the biggest pots of money in those rural areas came from the EU too.
It's not a difference of opinion, you're denying facts. Facts which back up that you're making an assumption which goes against them. He was addressing a local group, in an area which is the least deprived in a wealthy part of the country. The thread has gone beyond the clip anyway so that line doesn't stack up at all.
Rural poverty has been an issue for decades, which makes the fact that those areas vote Tory even more baffling. The idea that Tunbridge Wells is in the midst of it, or even able to be considered as part that issue makes little sense, before being presented with evidence.
Even odder that the biggest pots of money in those rural areas came from the EU too.
Whilst Tunbridge Wells is wealthy (with the average price for a fairly standard four- bedroom house probably around £900,000), the one thing in its favour (in my view) is that it was only place in Kent to vote Remain. I also think the Tories are very likely to lose it at the next election, probably to the Lib Dems who head a coalition leading the council which does not include the Tories.
Whilst Tunbridge Wells is wealthy (with the average price for a fairly standard four- bedroom house probably around £900,000), the one thing in its favour (in my view) is that it was only place in Kent to vote Remain. I also think the Tories are very likely to lose it at the next election, probably to the Lib Dems who head a coalition leading the council which does not include the Tories.
[Post edited 28 Oct 2022 8:29]
Quite, it's about as far from the "rural poverty" description as possible and those in the clip are obviously Tory etc. The two things in this thread are miles apart.
It's more concerning that people seem to keep forgetting that we've had 12 years of ruinous Tory government, and the infinite reshuffles and infighting are a symptom not an antidote to their catastrophic run.
Quite, it's about as far from the "rural poverty" description as possible and those in the clip are obviously Tory etc. The two things in this thread are miles apart.
It's more concerning that people seem to keep forgetting that we've had 12 years of ruinous Tory government, and the infinite reshuffles and infighting are a symptom not an antidote to their catastrophic run.
Sunak is as bad as any of them.
Absolutely. And even those supposedly nice Tories like Ken Clarke and Rory Stewart were fully behind the economic policies of the last 12 years which have destroyed public services. Seven million on the waiting list is shocking and is in marked contrast to countries like Spain and Germany. My brother-in-law in Germany is having a hip operation and was offered a choice of hospitals and dates, with no waiting list. But then again, the Germans value social provision, and are not obsessed with tax cuts and cutting spending.
It should be noted that Sunak changed it to one 'needing' help, whereas in the clip he talks of that area deserving the money.
What situation are they in that they deserve the money ?
Yet again some rightie with perhaps another new name tries to spin it to distract from what is obvious to all. The parrot Sketch needs no remaking when this Tory cap doffer is around.
I think we've already established lying is a feature of the modern Conservative Party, so nothing to see here. You are of course right though.
'Levelling up' is a bit of a con, to say the least. The term started with New Labour I believe, but I bet they had a slightly different vision for what it could mean.
Why on earth would you call levelling-up 'a con?
Most people outside Suffolk probaby think this is an affluent area but they do not know of the deprivation in parts of Ipswich, Lowestoft etc.
This is all about recognising that not all depriavtion is in inner-city metropolitan areas.
But that was not what Sunak was talking about, or intended.
His was basically a dog whistle to the wealthy that the largesse to the poor would be curtailed.
Unfortunately what your post shows is little more than the constant 'whataboutery' that follows any pointing out of the failings of Tories.
Harry - you often write of what you think is 'definite info' and for someone who clearly hates the tories you claim to know a lot about what we intend or what we think when in reality you have little idea.
Most of your arguments come out of a 1980's playbook of who or what Labour & Conservatives actually are.
The speech in question was clearly about how not all areas of deprivation are in metropolitan areas (mostly Labour) but are also in other areas (mostly Conservative) You then make the facile argument that the tories are looking after their own when in reality the people who benefit in the areas concerned may, or may not, be Conservative voters.
The way you post on here is a fine example of how social media is so divisive when it comes to politics as you are happy with posting lies & mis-truths. You also like to post your opinion as fact, when in reality it rarely is.
Harry - you often write of what you think is 'definite info' and for someone who clearly hates the tories you claim to know a lot about what we intend or what we think when in reality you have little idea.
Most of your arguments come out of a 1980's playbook of who or what Labour & Conservatives actually are.
The speech in question was clearly about how not all areas of deprivation are in metropolitan areas (mostly Labour) but are also in other areas (mostly Conservative) You then make the facile argument that the tories are looking after their own when in reality the people who benefit in the areas concerned may, or may not, be Conservative voters.
The way you post on here is a fine example of how social media is so divisive when it comes to politics as you are happy with posting lies & mis-truths. You also like to post your opinion as fact, when in reality it rarely is.
If you look at an earlier post of mine, it is clear that local government funding has been adjusted so as to benefit areas with a Tory MP or council, and so increase their chances of re-election. It's pork-barrel politics and has nothing to do with deprivation.
Harry - you often write of what you think is 'definite info' and for someone who clearly hates the tories you claim to know a lot about what we intend or what we think when in reality you have little idea.
Most of your arguments come out of a 1980's playbook of who or what Labour & Conservatives actually are.
The speech in question was clearly about how not all areas of deprivation are in metropolitan areas (mostly Labour) but are also in other areas (mostly Conservative) You then make the facile argument that the tories are looking after their own when in reality the people who benefit in the areas concerned may, or may not, be Conservative voters.
The way you post on here is a fine example of how social media is so divisive when it comes to politics as you are happy with posting lies & mis-truths. You also like to post your opinion as fact, when in reality it rarely is.
There's me told by a rightie apologist - a rare breed these days.
Perhaps that' why he is posting under yet another name.
Harry - you often write of what you think is 'definite info' and for someone who clearly hates the tories you claim to know a lot about what we intend or what we think when in reality you have little idea.
Most of your arguments come out of a 1980's playbook of who or what Labour & Conservatives actually are.
The speech in question was clearly about how not all areas of deprivation are in metropolitan areas (mostly Labour) but are also in other areas (mostly Conservative) You then make the facile argument that the tories are looking after their own when in reality the people who benefit in the areas concerned may, or may not, be Conservative voters.
The way you post on here is a fine example of how social media is so divisive when it comes to politics as you are happy with posting lies & mis-truths. You also like to post your opinion as fact, when in reality it rarely is.
Just checking, is it the case that Rishi lives in one of the least deprived constituencies in the U.K., but somehow, it made it onto the priority list of areas to get the first set of funds for levelling up?
Most people outside Suffolk probaby think this is an affluent area but they do not know of the deprivation in parts of Ipswich, Lowestoft etc.
This is all about recognising that not all depriavtion is in inner-city metropolitan areas.
It's a con because it isn't really happening. It's like the claim that the NHS is in safe hands when there are 7 million on the waiting list after 12 years of austerity. Or the claim they're building 30 new hospitals.
As regards parts of Suffolk, it has long been recognised that there are parts which are deprived, so this will always have been recognised when it came to funding before the Tories fiddled things. You don't think the Civil Service decides such things on the basis of how pretty Suffolk is? As it is, the latest 2019 figures show there are 526 postcodes in Ipswich which are in the top 10% of most deprived areas in the England, and only 33 postcodes which are in the 10% of least deprived.
It's not a difference of opinion, you're denying facts. Facts which back up that you're making an assumption which goes against them. He was addressing a local group, in an area which is the least deprived in a wealthy part of the country. The thread has gone beyond the clip anyway so that line doesn't stack up at all.
Rural poverty has been an issue for decades, which makes the fact that those areas vote Tory even more baffling. The idea that Tunbridge Wells is in the midst of it, or even able to be considered as part that issue makes little sense, before being presented with evidence.
Even odder that the biggest pots of money in those rural areas came from the EU too.
I'm not, putting it simply. You have rather taken us on a different course. My only bone of contention arose from the clip, as I've made clear throughout. I haven't suggested a policy that provides 'leveling up' funding to Tunbridge Wells is defensible. In fact I've said the opposite. I rebuke Rishi for policy alterations that remove vital and already insufficient funding from areas that need it most.
In reality, however, there's an obvious distinction between committing an act and admitting to it. The action and intent are not in dispute with me, but I don't agree the clip allows us to assume he has brazenly heralded himself as a kamikaze anti-robin-hood. It's an assumption that he's speaking exclusively of and to Tunbridge Wells, as opposed to constituents and challenges of wider Kent (or moreover, rural communities). It's an assumption that he's not referring to rural poverty in this clip, even if he is speaking exclusively to issues facing Tunbridge Wells.
It matters not that his words collapse in the face of facts. I mean, of course it does, but it doesn't to my contribution in this thread. Because the central point made by many is one I firmly support. Because I only interjected to say it's a leap for one for conclude Rishi has defiantly presented himself as anti-robin-hood in that clip. I'm not trying to provide credibility for his actions; I'm not trying to suggest plausibility in his arguments. Appropriate treatment of sources matters in my work. I understand why it's received short shrift here.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
