How many people actually believe this twaddle ???????

[ivanhoe]

COPIED AND PASTED.

QUOTE. ""Cameron rolls Thatcher revolution on

The Thatcher Governments of the 1980s gave people more power and control over their own lives by selling council houses to tenants and shares in nationalised industries to voters.

However, the Conservative revolution only went so far: the delivery as well as the funding of most local hospitals, schools, and council services stayed in state hands.

Today, the Prime Minister will give notice that the revolution's to roll on: in a speech to civil servants, he'll pledge "to turn government on its head, taking power away from Whitehall and putting it into the hands of people and communities".

Elected Commissioners will set policing priorities; parents will run schools; charities, clubs, voluntary groups and local people will take over swimming pools, libraries, social services, youth provision, and services for vulnerable people, such as drug and alcohol addiction programmes.

Edmund Burke's Little Platoons will evolve naturally into Steve Hilton's Big Society.

David Cameron will say: "The real question is: how can we achieve these aims when there is so little money?...The answer is reform - radical reform. We need to completely change the way this country is run.""

Unquote.

Aside from anything else, Mr David Cameron is saying that we have "so little money".

I guess Mr Cameron hopes we will all sit back and forget the billions we send overseas. The £50 plus million a day we fund into the EU. Plus the ring fenced expenditures are almost a bottomless pit care of "GREAT BRITAIN'S CHARITABLE GENEROSITY" round the world.

A question. Would you rather the State care of your income tax funded Britain's vital services ?

Or would you rather local charietes funded schools ect, because the government care of "the state" washed it's hands of it's responsibility's ?

On the whole, I prefer to live in a country where the leaders want to devolve power closer to the people and run the finances responsibly rather than one where the government holds all the cards in Westminster, operates a nanny/police state and wastes billions in tax money

Well said. Chil1234.

I know it's not 'right on' to admit to supporting the coalition on MN at the moment but given the unadulterated mess the last hypocritical lot made of running the show and the lack of confidence inspired by the chumps currently squatting on the Opposition benches, scratching their arses and snitching on each other to the Sundays, I'm willing to give the incumbents the benefit of the doubt.

Comrade ivanhoe would presumably be much happier if we offered Mr Putin the post of PM and asked him to show us how caring socialism really works in practice...

""On the whole, I prefer to live in a country where the leaders want to devolve power closer to the people""

Yes, without devolving taxes, instead making charities and private companies look after all vital services, which also means high local taxes which will hit the poor.

You cant see the wood for the trees, and what's more you dont want to.

That makes two of us then, doesn't it? I can't see the wood for the trees & you can't see the hammer for the sickles. I like a bit of balance.

OMG - do you look at the statistics for how many people even bother to VOTE in this country, and what's the point of having politicians and Civil Servants if I then have to run all the local finances and services? That's WHY I vote for them and why they get paid.

Some people can't even be bothered to work in this country or take responsibility for themselves, how are they supposed to help RUN the country?

It's a cost cutting exercise FGS - and sold with a lot of spin about 'empowering people'.

Look at Parish Councils and the petty oligarks they produce - this will be more of the same. Power obsessed locals who weren't successful enough or dedicated enough to bother with full time politics.

And what about things like planning permission - it's already a bit of an old boys network, this will just increase the opportunities for MORE OBNs...

How many people do you know who are qualified or bothered enough to be part of the 'big society'? That's the reality.

/////Chil1234 Sat 29-Jan-11 20:57:44
That makes two of us then, doesn't it? I can't see the wood for the trees & you can't see the hammer for the sickles. I like a bit of balance.//////

I see you are another "gentleman" who confuses Labour with communism.

Chil, Cameron, like Thatcher, wants to devolve the role state from funding into our vital services.

Instead Cameron wants to pile all responsibility for our services on local charity and private companies.

This is Cameron devolving power to the people, via reducing the role of what the State should provide through our taxes.

"Today, the Prime Minister will give notice that the revolution's to roll on: in a speech to civil servants, he'll pledge "to turn government on its head, taking power away from Whitehall and putting it into the hands of people and communities".

No, he wants to put power (and public money) into the hand of unaccountable, unelected multinationals.

Soon we will have to ask Megadeath Industries or Fuckyou inc for permission to have hospital treatment.

Doctores pratises will become part of vast private conglomerates.

USA heathcare here we come, "no money? then fuck off and die"

actally labour did a lot of pfi whch means hospitals are a jolly sight mroe expensive and all the money is going to people's pockets that we might not like very mucgh

AppleTrees, Quite correct but we did end up with (overpriced) new hospitals and schools. Under the last Tory government our schools and hospitals got worse and worse as will now happen under the new Tory government.

BTW, the NHS reorganisation is so that:

jolly sight more expensive and all the money is going to people's pockets that we might not like very much.

And who will be unaccountable and unelected as well.

if the tories had spent the moeny labour spent we would have had something to show for it

i voted labour

what happened to education turned me

if the tories had spent the money labour spent we would have had something to show for it.

Dear God, we have many new schools and hospitals to show for "it" and the Tories would never have spent money on State schools and hospitals because they dont use them.

"I see you are another "gentleman" who confuses Labour with communism."

I'm female and a mother (the typical MN member). You're the man and you're using a parenting messageboard as a political soap-box. And I've been reading your 'manifestos' long enough to realise you're the grumpy old bloke standing on the street corner trying to flog copies of the Socialist Worker... and keeping the red flag flying high. The hammer and sickle reference was a joke. Gene Hunt would be proud.

With apologies for mistaking your sex.

Life on Mars was brilliant.

But even the fictitious Gene Hunt when getting a serious illness would like to know that his taxes were being used by central government to fund the services we all need and use in our daily lives.

Gene Hunt im sure would not want this funding to have to come from charities trying to raise the money locally for community care, the NHS ect, or even the private sector where the only motive is profit.

Im a European social democrat and proud to be, Europe fund all their services via much highher tax rates from the British public, and a greater use of their Gross National Product than we do.

""newwave Sun 30-Jan-11 01:05:41
if the tories had spent the money labour spent we would have had something to show for it.

Dear God, we have many new schools and hospitals to show for "it" and the Tories would never have spent money on State schools and hospitals because they dont use them.""

The Tories will never spend the amounts of money "New" Labour spent.

And this is because the Tories do not believe in "the role of the State" as investment and subsidy into our vital services.

The Tories believe in charities funding our vital services, and privatising them.

""Appletrees Sun 30-Jan-11 00:28:36
actally labour did a lot of pfi whch means hospitals are a jolly sight mroe expensive and all the money is going to people's pockets that we might not like very mucgh""

"NEW" Labour carried on Thatcher's right wing agenda from 1997.

Hospital were still buried under excess and highly paid beaurocrats.

We cannot afford the level of services we would like.

So we either have the services we can afford, or we live beyond our means until there's an dreadful crash (IMF bailout anyone?) which would have a devastating impact on what we could afford in future.

er or perhaps they knew the country couldn't afford it

Labour wasted billions and billions and billions

and look where we are, just look

""onimolap Sun 30-Jan-11 10:53:11
We cannot afford the level of services we would like.

So we either have the services we can afford, or we live beyond our means until there's an dreadful crash (IMF bailout anyone?) which would have a devastating impact on what we could afford in future.""

We are funding foreign wars, upholding third world countries, £50 million a day goes to Europe, the government have a National Insurance "surplus" of £40 billion.

And you are saying that we cannot afford our vital services.

Who told you that ?

The figures for the current levels of over-spending and the national debt amply illustrate the unaffordability of the current level.

So, what about all the tax payers money spent overseas then ?

I do think that health, school and police boards should be locally elected and seperate from local and central govt.

But this is being done just to save money so probably wont work well.

I believe that Health, Community Care, Transport, Post Offices, and Education, should all come from direct taxation from Central Government.

ivanhoe, do you want to cut develoment aid or money that goes to europe, or which other are you talking about