On 12 May 2010 at 12:52am Disgusted of Lewes wrote:
Just watched sky news, Baker couldn't contain himself. Elected under false pretenses.
On 12 May 2010 at 8:28am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Well, he won't be getting another vote from me.
They'll carry the can for everything that goes wrong during this government's term.
On 12 May 2010 at 8:40am OpTIMistic wrote:
I feel so relieved that Labour are out and I feel that for the first time in decades, this country has a future.
Labour turned Great Britain into Grate Britain. This government is the most exciting one since pre-war years.
As for Norman, he can rest assurred that my vote remains firmly with him and I wish him well.
On 12 May 2010 at 10:16am SHS wrote:
Well said Opti. The last few years of labour have fully put to bed the myth that labour are good for the NHS, pensioners, public transport & the so-called poor. Labour are the party of waste.
On 12 May 2010 at 11:05am jr wrote:
SHS - well said. As someone who remembers the Labour party as a true socialist party striving for the good of the working class I can tell you that since the mid 90's they have been anything but. New Labour was the end of the party that was there for the working class, their top people are just as wealthy, and in some cases moreso, than those in the so called wealthy party. I have nothing against wealth that has been earned but cannot support those who become wealthy due to their becoming a politician Take the Kinnock family as an example. Neil roundly rejected by the British electorate so that he had to resign but went on to a top job in Europe and then appeared to secure employment for his wife and others in his family. There lies the real corruption of politics, in ensuring that politicians go on to get highly paid work assisted by other politicians even when the electorate have rejected them.
On 12 May 2010 at 11:56am Feline wrote:
Or even better - Tony Blair with his 12.5 million property portfolio and his list of very dodgy 'advisor' jobs!!!
On 12 May 2010 at 1:21pm SHS wrote:
Scope for cutbacks here: in 2009 the number of new UK laws enacted (as Statutory Instruments) was 3,468. I firmly believe that if the size, complexity and pay of govt (including all the 'outsourced to the private sector' work) was cut by 50% we would have more than enough money for improving traditional (i.e. not fancy websites & TV ads) public services, cutting taxes and reducing the nation's debt. If I'm stuck for cash or time I prioritise, turn down the heating & lighting, then cut out the non-essential stuff. Why can't the govt do this, instead of treating taxpayers as a bottomless pit of gold?
On 12 May 2010 at 1:44pm not from around here wrote:
SHS - I agree with you. The gov can easily cut the waste in the way you describe but the previous labour gov was unwilling to do this as they knew that their supporters preferred spend-spend-spend over efficiency.
With a Tory gov it is certain that some waste will be cut but with the influence of the Lib-Dems also in gov I'm not sure how easy it will be.
On the min wage issue I would like to see no further increase of this as it will cost jobs and make us less competitive - in fact I never believed in it myself.
Somebody suggested a maximum wage - just another bitter comment. If we limited the wages of the top earners then some of the best business people would go elsewhere to other countries to work. We would then lose some of the very people who drive the most profitable businesses in the UK. The result would be less profit generated and therefore less jobs created hitting the very people who propose this sort of ridiculous idea of limiting wages in the first place.
On 12 May 2010 at 2:00pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
I think it was only public sector wages that it was suggested were capped.
On 12 May 2010 at 2:13pm Clifford wrote:
I think we've got your number Not from round here - make sure that 'we' are more competitive by making the poor poorer and the rich richer. Who are the 'us' you are talking about?
On 12 May 2010 at 2:28pm Old Cynic wrote:
JR if you say New Labour was rubbish was that because it was also known as 'Tory Light'?
On 12 May 2010 at 2:32pm lewes trousers wrote:
Oh come on...Labour may have faded at the last and done the horrible war, but they changed the course of politics in this country toward the centre left by introducing many social endeavours.
Have you wiped from your memeorybthe state of the NHS in 1996, massive waiting lists, ward and hospital closures, nurses leaving in literla droves. Schools with no books and so on. The Tories in West sussex scrapped school meals for kids.
Waste, you have the dogs b*lloc$s....the 1980s was a time of wasted lives. Minimum wage oh no that mustn't go up as it will effect jobs...ha ha ha, it will effect profits to give people a decent wage.
So if we cap wages people go elsewhere so why the suggestion to cap executives in the public sector? Because then they will go elsewhere and we can take a part brick by brick the public sector which Tories hate so much.
This i what Norman and his Liberal friends have gone in with, They are all Tories as far as i can see.
If you were once a liberal the only choice is to Support Labour or the Greens though you will probably let the other Tory in.
I had that Labour leaflet in the last few days of the election predicting this CON-DEM alliance, looks like no one listened, or perhaps cared.
On 12 May 2010 at 4:28pm SHS wrote:
3rd runway at Heathrow cancelled. Why did the labour govt waste money on something so obviously difficult and only 50% likely to succeed? Would anyone or any future govt have opposed or cancelled new NHS nurses, school teachers or new railway lines? Wouldn't these items have been a better use of our money?
On 12 May 2010 at 4:37pm jrsussex wrote:
Old Cynic - I said the Labour party from the mid 90's no longer represented the working class as a socialist political party, round the time that Mr Blair arrived in office. Had John Smith not passed away I believe the party would have walked a very different, more social, path. The fact they eventually turned out to be rubbish is a separate debate.
On 13 May 2010 at 8:36pm Efflic wrote:
It was just announced on Sky news that the Lib Dems have had to concede 0n Tory plans to up taxation on lentils, yoghurt, sandals and the Guardian . They are also saying that Tescos are to be given grants in order to expand and as of the 1st of April next year Viva Lewes will cost £1.
Thanks Norman, thanks alot .
On 13 May 2010 at 11:19pm LOVE wrote:
that the conservatives i know putting every thing up .i voted for libs i did not vote for conservatives i will not ever vote for them again .i rather vote labour if i known they were becoming conservatives cos that what they r now .nick clegg and cam r like teens in love cam says jump he jumps .the libdems r gone its just labour or conservatives . and conservatives r for the rich and labour r for the lower class
On 14 May 2010 at 2:03pm not from around here wrote:
But Norman Baker is always smug, it's just that in Lewes nobody notices..
On 16 May 2010 at 3:22pm LOVE wrote:
true.not from around here.