BBC Blog Network

User Profile

newstead73

Listed below are comments made by newstead73 between Wednesday, 9th September 2009 and Monday, 21st December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Copenhagen: the dawn of a new political reality 11:21am on 21 Dec 2009 Spot on! And it explains why we have not seen our beloved leader on screen or in interview proclaiming that he led the talks and saved the world as was his clear intention earlier in the week when he must have said 'I' this and 'I' that more than a dozen times.
The party of the poor 4:42pm on 10 Nov 2009 #126

and the difference between this and what we have now is what exactly?
The party of the poor 4:40pm on 10 Nov 2009 #125 manuinlondon

In answer to your question, yes, I think it is!
The Kelly Report 11:17am on 04 Nov 2009 #6 probablynogood wrote ""Does anyone know whether there is anything to prevent or limit 'expense' claims from second, third, 'n'th jobs? Or any limit on the number of other paid jobs being performed while still claiming a full-time salary from the state?""

Does it matter what expenses they claim from ancillary jobs so long as the taxpayer is not paying for them? Presumably such expenses will be incurred in the fulfilment of their job specification, and, if in the private, sector, the problem of the employer and not the taxpayer. As for how many jobs, surely an MP should be entitled to have as many jobs as he wants, provided that there is no reduction in the contribution he makes to his constituents as their MP, and does not use a secondary job commitment to avoid attending at the House when necessary
Asset sale: Deja vu? 1:35pm on 12 Oct 2009 Good spot, Stephanie

How much longer do we have to put up with this economically bereft and truth-light Government spinning out headline-seeking stories that are a rehash of ones that have already been announced. Seems like it was deemed a 'good day for bad news', given that the expenses scandal has reared its head again today. The bad news being of course that this is not a new £16bn proceeds/profit from asset sales and therefore appears to be an acknowledgement that the cupboard is now virtually bare and there are no more assets to sell which will produce any kind of sum relevant to the overriding debt problem.

And what part of this assumed sum is to be used for/or can afford to be used for investment, given the debt service obligations? Furthermore, what investment does the spin doctor have in mind?
Cameron's very personal plea 6:04pm on 08 Oct 2009 #25 & #33

I agree with both of your comments.

I have not been wholly convinced by Cameron but I felt the speech was thoughtful and restrained. No continuous New Labour-bashing, no personal attacks. Cameron is never going to get away from the Tory Toff moniker but that is something he cannot help. It is a pity that a number of the left-leaning (as if New Labour was a left wing party anymore) posts on this and other blogs cannot make objective observations without the need for entering into a class war. If he should win the election, and if he should fail BECAUSE he is seen as a Tory Toff, then that is a different matter, but there is no doubt right now who is the more visionary party leader and it is appropriate that the British people give him a chance to turn the country round. Lord knows, we know what will happen if the current Government is allowed to continue in power for a few more years, let alone for the few months remaining until the election
Benefit cuts consensus? 12:01pm on 06 Oct 2009 501, 509, 518 -

Couldn't agree more.
Big choices 12:11pm on 16 Sep 2009 #162 "At the very least One or Both needs to be suspended from the house for a period of time"

Fat chance of that happening - they make the rules, they change the rules to suit themselves, they lie, they cheat, they deceive, they waffle and all this time the country sinks further into the mire, the people further into the depths of despair(so much for 'this is what the people want us to do') and we still have to suffer another several months of this disreputable crew.

I am no particular fan of Cameron, though I think that 'when the time comes' (whenever he chooses that to be) he will probably be able to articulate much better the kind of cuts he expects to need to make and the quantum of those cuts. I would be happier if politicians with the calibre and experience of Vince Cable or the moral compass of Frank Field were on board the Cameron train and I believe IDS' welfare report has much to commend it, if only the Tories would have the courage to embrace it before NuLiebour claims it for its own.

My fear is that politicians STILL don't get the outrage felt by the population over the expenses fiasco - party political pointscoring is still the order of the day and the country is fed up with it.Witness the general response to GB's speech yesterday.
The 'C' word 3:56pm on 15 Sep 2009 Interesting that GB used the 'c' word not once, but four times, in one sentence, as if making up for lost time. Otherwise the speech was just blather and obfuscation and even the union leaders interviewed could not agree between thenm whether he had said the right thing, the wrong thing or not enough things.

As for 'this is what the people want', how would he know. He has never asked us.
Why don't the Conservatives spell out their plans? 10:37am on 09 Sep 2009 #122 and earlier posts.

Have very much enjoyed your common sense approach. I have reservations about what Cameron would do (historically the Tories have not had a particularly good track record but that was almost so far in the past to be totally irrelevant to the current situation). As you implied NuLiebor should be making all the running as they are the party in power and no sensible opposition leader will be putting out plans with numbers attached when the election is still 8 months or so away (God help us in the meantime.

If Cameron is going to take a big axe to the overblown State sector then IN THE LONG TERM the resultant levels of short unemployed are likely to be for the ultimate benefit of the country and therefore a price worth paying.

As for Cameron (or anyone else for that matter) coming out and explaining how they would stop rich bankers fleecing the poor I am afraid that is in reality something of a red herring. True, there has been misery caused by a limited number (a very limited number) of bankers to a whole lot of people, not least I might add to the many hundreds of ordinary hardworking bankers who are now redundant and without much hope of being re-employed in the sector. I fear that it would be extremely difficult to rein in the pay and bonuses of the sector at large - the private sector can do what it likes basically and if ever we want to get a dividend out of the banks that are nationalised they are going to have to be allowed to play on a level playing field with their competitors.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

newstead73