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.
As someone who lives only a couple of miles away from Tunbridge Wells, I can tell you that it's down on its knees these days, and needs all the additional funding it can get, what with the problems they have in getting nannies and domestic servants.
As someone who lives only a couple of miles away from Tunbridge Wells, I can tell you that it's down on its knees these days, and needs all the additional funding it can get, what with the problems they have in getting nannies and domestic servants.
It could be argued that Sunak was just seeking to appeal to that particular audience
If so, a liar
If not, a liar.....as all the guff about helping the poor, levelling up etc is a lie
Why take for your wealthy constituents when you can take for yourself ?
"A charity founded by the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, paid more than £110,000 — two-thirds of its income — to his former political adviser Adam Smith, who lost his job over a lobbying scandal."
"Newly re-appointed Conservative ministers are facing calls to forego their redundancy payments following Rishi Sunak’s reshuffle. Recent Tory turmoil means several sacked ministers — now back in government — are able to claim hefty pay-outs at the taxpayers’ expense."
Braverman, 6 days out of her job can claim 25% redundancy
Why take for your wealthy constituents when you can take for yourself ?
"A charity founded by the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, paid more than £110,000 — two-thirds of its income — to his former political adviser Adam Smith, who lost his job over a lobbying scandal."
"Newly re-appointed Conservative ministers are facing calls to forego their redundancy payments following Rishi Sunak’s reshuffle. Recent Tory turmoil means several sacked ministers — now back in government — are able to claim hefty pay-outs at the taxpayers’ expense."
Braverman, 6 days out of her job can claim 25% redundancy
"Thems our betters, thems is"
Actually, Braverman can't because she was reappointed as a minister within three weeks, but all the rest can, including all those whom Johnson appointed and then disappeared following the mass resignations just before his demise.
Actually, Braverman can't because she was reappointed as a minister within three weeks, but all the rest can, including all those whom Johnson appointed and then disappeared following the mass resignations just before his demise.
"she was reappointed as a minister within three weeks"
As someone who lives only a couple of miles away from Tunbridge Wells, I can tell you that it's down on its knees these days, and needs all the additional funding it can get, what with the problems they have in getting nannies and domestic servants.
Much as I hate to defend a Tory, this is something that the Labour party has never got to grips with.
It could be argued that Sunak was just seeking to appeal to that particular audience
If so, a liar
If not, a liar.....as all the guff about helping the poor, levelling up etc is a lie
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.
Much as I hate to defend a Tory, this is something that the Labour party has never got to grips with.
Rural areas can be deprived too.
The EU got to grips with it (as much as they could). Cornwall & West Wales & the Valleys got additional support (well over what's happening through 'Levelling Up' despite the promises, but we're not bitter. Much).
It shouldn't be difficult. There are enough stats around to inform decisions about which areas should receive the most funding, but then constituencies also have to be bribed to vote for you. So what to do, it's such a dilemma!
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.
It was made popular by the bloater as yet another one of his 'tell them what they want to hear' at that moment then then forget about it within the hour.
What needs to be addressed is why some areas are rundown. Although it should be borne in mind the words of one northern thicko who defended his voting Tory as things had got worse over the past decade, and he blamed Labour for not protecting his community from Tory cuts.......I kid you not.
Many of those communities grew up around heavy industries which no longer exist. In general the brightest and the best have got out, and got on, becoming part the wealthy metropolitan elite, so we are told.
A hurdle to those wanting to move in search of work is the cock eyed housing policy. Try moving to below the Watford gap if you own/rent a house 'oop north'. It's impossible.
Tory lies that the champagne socialists of Islington care little for their horny handed sons of toil comrades plays well, if you are someone with limited intellect. Right across Europe can be found the same problems with vary degrees of aid.
We need a government of the 21st century, not one clinging to 19th century technology and 1950's mindset. Scrap HS2, and put the money into fast fibre, to every corner of the UK as was done with the telephone.
Encourage work to be carried out 'at home'. So much can be done now why skype etc. It is about moving data to people not the otherway round as HS2 and that cretin Rees-Mogg would have. Only better paid work will revive these communities and that means allowing folk to stay within the communities. An example being a former schoolmate has moved out of Reading, into rural Suffolk and runs his business teaching from there. He has a worldwide clientele. He uses a couple of lecturers part time, one in Harlech, the other in Louth (Lincs). It is more cost effective for all of them. Even his sometime used IT man is based in Suffolk
this sort of stuff is already happening. It needs a massive push by government. And that means dropping the isolationist North Korean mentality of many in thoes run down areas. Foreigners are not taking your jobs. Those jobs are long gone. Overcome that hostility to the 21st century and you will benefit.
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.
In that very short clip he said that he took funding away from ‘deprived urban areas and into areas like this’. By ‘like this’ could he have been talking about a deprived rural area in which that Conservative office (or whatever it is) was in?
It is an old video clip. But Sunak is still a Tory. The idea of levelling up is reducing the tax burden for the richest and paying for this by cutting the size of the state provision. This is always going to hurt the poorest. His methods will not wreck the economy in the same way that Truss' did. But they are not going to be any kinder to the most vulnerable.
In that very short clip he said that he took funding away from ‘deprived urban areas and into areas like this’. By ‘like this’ could he have been talking about a deprived rural area in which that Conservative office (or whatever it is) was in?
I know Tunbridge Wells very well. It is an affluent spa town with many grand period houses. The Tories used to own a magnificent building in the original part of the town. These days the various west Kent Tory constituency parties operate out of a unit in an industrial estate. The event was a garden party, and looking at the video it must be the garden of a very grand house owned by a Tory member or maybe the local MP Greg Clark. Sunak's speech was therefore perhaps envisaging funding going toward things like the upkeep of duck houses.
I know Tunbridge Wells very well. It is an affluent spa town with many grand period houses. The Tories used to own a magnificent building in the original part of the town. These days the various west Kent Tory constituency parties operate out of a unit in an industrial estate. The event was a garden party, and looking at the video it must be the garden of a very grand house owned by a Tory member or maybe the local MP Greg Clark. Sunak's speech was therefore perhaps envisaging funding going toward things like the upkeep of duck houses.
No problem. Actually the point you were making, and other have made, namely, that there can be deprivation outside towns and cities is true. But my understanding of how local government finance used to work is that this was taken into account. It's just that a town like Blackpool would gain more under the previous system than, say, the Suffolk Coastal, which does have some pockets of deprivation (such as Leiston). It is this that the Tories didn't like, so they have changed things to favour Tory areas, and Sunak was speaking the truth, as the following link shows.
I disagree with you here from that clip. We hear the words "like this", see the leafy surrounds and name Tunbridge Wells and are encouraged to make the assumption you have. It is reasonable without further footage to allow for the possibility he may have been describing rural poverty often overlooked by funding formulas, rather than simply diverting funding from deprived areas to wealthy.
It's confirmation bias without more footage or accounts of the talk. Whether utilitarianism dictates that insufficient funds should be retained for tackling urban poverty is a different matter.
I disagree with you here from that clip. We hear the words "like this", see the leafy surrounds and name Tunbridge Wells and are encouraged to make the assumption you have. It is reasonable without further footage to allow for the possibility he may have been describing rural poverty often overlooked by funding formulas, rather than simply diverting funding from deprived areas to wealthy.
It's confirmation bias without more footage or accounts of the talk. Whether utilitarianism dictates that insufficient funds should be retained for tackling urban poverty is a different matter.
See what I have just posted, and what I have said earlier in this thread. I live in the neighbouring constituency to Tunbridge Wells, and there just isn't the sort of rural poverty that you might have in, say, Cornwall. Much of the land is not fit for agriculture, being on the Weald, and those that do work on the land will be migrant workers. Yet, as I mentioned above, areas like Tunbridge Wells have not suffered as much from austerity cuts as areas with a Labour MP.
It was made popular by the bloater as yet another one of his 'tell them what they want to hear' at that moment then then forget about it within the hour.
What needs to be addressed is why some areas are rundown. Although it should be borne in mind the words of one northern thicko who defended his voting Tory as things had got worse over the past decade, and he blamed Labour for not protecting his community from Tory cuts.......I kid you not.
Many of those communities grew up around heavy industries which no longer exist. In general the brightest and the best have got out, and got on, becoming part the wealthy metropolitan elite, so we are told.
A hurdle to those wanting to move in search of work is the cock eyed housing policy. Try moving to below the Watford gap if you own/rent a house 'oop north'. It's impossible.
Tory lies that the champagne socialists of Islington care little for their horny handed sons of toil comrades plays well, if you are someone with limited intellect. Right across Europe can be found the same problems with vary degrees of aid.
We need a government of the 21st century, not one clinging to 19th century technology and 1950's mindset. Scrap HS2, and put the money into fast fibre, to every corner of the UK as was done with the telephone.
Encourage work to be carried out 'at home'. So much can be done now why skype etc. It is about moving data to people not the otherway round as HS2 and that cretin Rees-Mogg would have. Only better paid work will revive these communities and that means allowing folk to stay within the communities. An example being a former schoolmate has moved out of Reading, into rural Suffolk and runs his business teaching from there. He has a worldwide clientele. He uses a couple of lecturers part time, one in Harlech, the other in Louth (Lincs). It is more cost effective for all of them. Even his sometime used IT man is based in Suffolk
this sort of stuff is already happening. It needs a massive push by government. And that means dropping the isolationist North Korean mentality of many in thoes run down areas. Foreigners are not taking your jobs. Those jobs are long gone. Overcome that hostility to the 21st century and you will benefit.
"he blamed Labour for not protecting his community from Tory cuts.......I kid you not"
I expect this is quite common, and not without a grain of truth. Often it's Lab local councils having to implement cuts: they're the face of them when, for example, a library closes. Some Lab councils more willing/less defiant than others, of course.
See what I have just posted, and what I have said earlier in this thread. I live in the neighbouring constituency to Tunbridge Wells, and there just isn't the sort of rural poverty that you might have in, say, Cornwall. Much of the land is not fit for agriculture, being on the Weald, and those that do work on the land will be migrant workers. Yet, as I mentioned above, areas like Tunbridge Wells have not suffered as much from austerity cuts as areas with a Labour MP.
Appreciate your input and happy to accept your conclusions DJR. I think it's safer ground to argue that rural deprivation in this area is not equivalent to elsewhere, and therefore funding tweaks which increase its funding at the expense of more worthy areas should be criticized whatever the true intent of his words in that video. It is still possible from the video that Rishi has claimed credit for channeling funds from poor to rich, but given he was in full electioneering mode this feels a very off-brand blunder to have made, even if seemingly in a safe space - of course such a place doesn't exist even inside Westminster, let alone on the campaign trail.
Now if I were electioneering myself I would be leading instead with Harry's message of course, would probably emblazon it on a bus.
Appreciate your input and happy to accept your conclusions DJR. I think it's safer ground to argue that rural deprivation in this area is not equivalent to elsewhere, and therefore funding tweaks which increase its funding at the expense of more worthy areas should be criticized whatever the true intent of his words in that video. It is still possible from the video that Rishi has claimed credit for channeling funds from poor to rich, but given he was in full electioneering mode this feels a very off-brand blunder to have made, even if seemingly in a safe space - of course such a place doesn't exist even inside Westminster, let alone on the campaign trail.
Now if I were electioneering myself I would be leading instead with Harry's message of course, would probably emblazon it on a bus.
I disagree with you here from that clip. We hear the words "like this", see the leafy surrounds and name Tunbridge Wells and are encouraged to make the assumption you have. It is reasonable without further footage to allow for the possibility he may have been describing rural poverty often overlooked by funding formulas, rather than simply diverting funding from deprived areas to wealthy.
It's confirmation bias without more footage or accounts of the talk. Whether utilitarianism dictates that insufficient funds should be retained for tackling urban poverty is a different matter.
There's no mitigation or excuse, it's rank hypocrisy and pandering to their base as ever. This man is so vastly wealthy what motivation does he have to be PM? Look at what he's done and more importantly who's stood shoulder to shoulder with to do it.
There's no mitigation or excuse, it's rank hypocrisy and pandering to their base as ever. This man is so vastly wealthy what motivation does he have to be PM? Look at what he's done and more importantly who's stood shoulder to shoulder with to do it.
The subtext is that money is being given to the undeserving, and I am the man who is changing that.
"Be assured, if you elect me, I will cut throwing money to them and make sure it goes to you folk"
Idiotic guff about this being Sunak talking about other areas of deprivation is just that...idiotic guff.
And I doubt if Sunak has any idea of what deprivations is, how much is used to support these communities etc........it is just something to pander to what he sees as his voters.
There's no mitigation or excuse, it's rank hypocrisy and pandering to their base as ever. This man is so vastly wealthy what motivation does he have to be PM? Look at what he's done and more importantly who's stood shoulder to shoulder with to do it.
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).
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
