Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
You clearly don't get it, even if you've provided the stock answer you all dreamt up in the tory sub-forum again. In any case, as with the last "budget" this has kind of zapped my enthusiasm. I think I shall go into exile again for a while.
Come join the Tories and see there are no stock answers at all. Utter lunacy. We don't prepare answers, we have everything we need to say in our minds.


First it's a region of England not a nation, now it's a principality but not a country. Get some consistency why don't you. Anyway, don't bother to reply, I won't read it.
When the **** did I say it was a region of England?
0
reply
Ysolt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
(Original post by Jarred)
Budget Report, Rt. Hon. Jarred MP
Home Office and Ministry of Justice

The Government will not merge these two departments officially, however, we propose that they should share the same budget due to the fact they both cover similar areas and close collaboration between the two departments will be easier if the two departments draw funds from the same budget.
This budget shall be £13 Billion this year. Currently, the Home Office has a budget of £8.9Bn, and the MoJ has a budget of £8.6Bn.

Our measure thus produces an expenditure change of +£4.5 Billion.
Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£111.205 Billion.

To some, that may sound like a disastrously large reduction, but our reasoning is clear: Drugs are legal in the United Kingdom, and the current budgets take into account the spending on drug enforcement programs and imprisoning drug users, which is not applicable to The Student Room. Transform, a pro-decriminalisation group estimated that the Government could save approximately £10 Billion if drugs were legal, and it is definitely safe to say that the majority of this would be felt from these two departments, so our reduction will not cause any issue at all.
As Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Justice, here's my official response on behalf of the Party. The Libertarian Leader has already pointed out that the Narcotics Act 2011 was actually cost/revenue neutral, already taking into account the additional income the government receives from taxing a legal market in drugs. I do not believe that the £4.5bn you are proposing to make in cuts can be justified by the changes in the drug industry that have occurred. This policy will force thousands of additional law enforcement officers into unnecessary redundancy simply because you want to cut taxes (that's not necessarily the way out of recession). I'm concerned that recent improvements in policing could be rolled back; the murder rate is at a 30-year low and conviction rates in cases of domestic violence have risen. You don't maintain these good statistics by cutting the law enforcement system that has helped bring them about. An even graver worry I have is for the justice system. Trials are already being delayed by months, there is an existing shortage of judges. A leading barrister told the BBC recently that the (relatively small) cuts made in RL are "...delaying justice. It has a bad effect on witnesses and victims, as well as upon defendants." We can't afford to cut any further, it's just not practical and will only make problems worse. This is false economy part of the Budget.
0
reply
eff01
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
(Original post by Jarred)
QFA
Mr Speaker, with permission I would like to respond to the chancellor’s response. Mr Speaker, This fuel freeze until 2015 demonstrates the lack of confidence this chancellor has in the economy. The chancellor has left no room to manoeuvre. We in the Labour Party sincerely hope fuel prices will decrease, but Mr Speaker when they do motorists will be in a position where they could be potentially paying more for their petrol as a result of this fuel freeze as it leaves no room to cut fuel duty.

Mr Speaker, this country has a long history of sporting achievements. At a time when athletes are coming to compete in the Olympic Games and visitors are coming to London from around the world, the decision of the government to attack British sporting is deplorable. Mr Speaker the chancellor failed to answer my question, how much funding will he give to the Arts Council to deal with the consequences of this departmental closure? The chancellor’s reckless actions have attacked British sporting and culture.

Mr Speaker, I would like to remind the Rt Honourable gentlemen that the first Muslim minister was in fact Shahid Malik, a Labour MP. The chancellor, Mr Speaker can not hide the RL composition of the cabinet. With four elected women, no MPs from ethnic minorities and no members representing LGBT and disabled people, this closure of the DfE is no surprise. It is indefensible and any defence of this closure, just goes to show how out of touch this government and chancellor are.

Mr Speaker, the chancellor clearly has been practising his lines in front of the mirror. I wonder if the chancellor can put as much effort into answering these questions a) how many jobs will go at the DfID as a result of this FOC merger and b) how much will the Foreign Secretary set aside for International Development. £1? £1million? £1billion? – Mr speaker the fact of the matter is that the chancellor by not stating what the budget for ID is, has sent a clear message to the developing world, that this TSR government is not interested in the plights of millions who are struggling to earn a $1 a day. Compassionate conservatism? Mr Speaker, this is reckless conservatism!

The chancellor talks about having ‘a comprehensive review about what Government means’, ‘looking to the future’ but Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the chancellor how does closing the DECC, DfT and DEFRA fit into this comprehensive review of government. If we need an urgent carbon treaty, which Sec of State do we go to? If the public want to hold a minister to account regarding transport which Sec of State do they go to? If the country needs a new motorway, who will be in charge of presenting a bill? If the MoH needs to ask an urgent question regarding Airport expansion, who do we call to the House? If there is an environmental disaster, who do we contact, who do we look to? If we want to bid for a sporting event, which minister do we contact? Or is the chancellor saying that he should be held accountable; he should be the person the public contact? These reckless, poor thought-out proposals will lead to a lack of accountability and lack of clarity.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the house are proud of devolution, proud of our record on devolution. The chancellor may once again like to avoid the RL reality, but it was his party that did not support devolution and today with the closing of the Wales, Scot and NI office his TSR government is once again attacking devolution!

Mr Speaker, the arrogance of the chancellor is astounding. He in this budget has made 3,000 people unemployed. The chancellor in his responses does not have the capacity to show humility for his actions. Out of touch chancellor, out of touch TSR government.

The chancellor’s budget is poorly thought-out, reckless and has placed thousands of jobs in jeopardy. The chancellor before this budget was gifted a pair of scissors, next time we can only hope that he is gifted humility. Mr Speaker, the chancellor talks about thinking about the future, Mr Speaker, TSR asks him to think again!
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#104
Report 7 years ago
#104
Mr Speaker, i would like to commend Eff. Whilst i may disagree with him his posts in this thread have been great for the political theater and i hope that we will be seeing much more.

*Post 84 cracked me up with the Chancellor's scissors.
0
reply
eff01
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#105
Report 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, i would like to commend Eff. Whilst i may disagree with him his posts in this thread have been great for the political theater and i hope that we will be seeing much more.

*Post 84 cracked me up with the Chancellor's scissors.
Haha thanks and I guarantee that the political theatre will continue
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
(Original post by eff01)
Mr Speaker, with permission I would like to respond to the chancellor’s response. Mr Speaker, This fuel freeze until 2015 demonstrates the lack of confidence this chancellor has in the economy. The chancellor has left no room to manoeuvre. We in the Labour Party sincerely hope fuel prices will decrease, but Mr Speaker when they do motorists will be in a position where they could be potentially paying more for their petrol as a result of this fuel freeze as it leaves no room to cut fuel duty.

Mr Speaker, this country has a long history of sporting achievements. At a time when athletes are coming to compete in the Olympic Games and visitors are coming to London from around the world, the decision of the government to attack British sporting is deplorable. Mr Speaker the chancellor failed to answer my question, how much funding will he give to the Arts Council to deal with the consequences of this departmental closure? The chancellor’s reckless actions have attacked British sporting and culture.

Mr Speaker, I would like to remind the Rt Honourable gentlemen that the first Muslim minister was in fact Shahid Malik, a Labour MP. The chancellor, Mr Speaker can not hide the RL composition of the cabinet. With four elected women, no MPs from ethnic minorities and no members representing LGBT and disabled people, this closure of the DfE is no surprise. It is indefensible and any defence of this closure, just goes to show how out of touch this government and chancellor are.

Mr Speaker, the chancellor clearly has been practising his lines in front of the mirror. I wonder if the chancellor can put as much effort into answering these questions a) how many jobs will go at the DfID as a result of this FOC merger and b) how much will the Foreign Secretary set aside for International Development. £1? £1million? £1billion? – Mr speaker the fact of the matter is that the chancellor by not stating what the budget for ID is, has sent a clear message to the developing world, that this TSR government is not interested in the plights of millions who are struggling to earn a $1 a day. Compassionate conservatism? Mr Speaker, this is reckless conservatism!

The chancellor talks about having ‘a comprehensive review about what Government means’, ‘looking to the future’ but Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the chancellor how does closing the DECC, DfT and DEFRA fit into this comprehensive review of government. If we need an urgent carbon treaty, which Sec of State do we go to? If the public want to hold a minister to account regarding transport which Sec of State do they go to? If the country needs a new motorway, who will be in charge of presenting a bill? If the MoH needs to ask an urgent question regarding Airport expansion, who do we call to the House? If there is an environmental disaster, who do we contact, who do we look to? If we want to bid for a sporting event, which minister do we contact? Or is the chancellor saying that he should be held accountable; he should be the person the public contact? These reckless, poor thought-out proposals will lead to a lack of accountability and lack of clarity.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the house are proud of devolution, proud of our record on devolution. The chancellor may once again like to avoid the RL reality, but it was his party that did not support devolution and today with the closing of the Wales, Scot and NI office his TSR government is once again attacking devolution!

Mr Speaker, the arrogance of the chancellor is astounding. He in this budget has made 3,000 people unemployed. The chancellor in his responses does not have the capacity to show humility for his actions. Out of touch chancellor, out of touch TSR government.

The chancellor’s budget is poorly thought-out, reckless and has placed thousands of jobs in jeopardy. The chancellor before this budget was gifted a pair of scissors, next time we can only hope that he is gifted humility. Mr Speaker, the chancellor talks about thinking about the future, Mr Speaker, TSR asks him to think again!
Mr Speaker, need I remind the right honorable gentleman that petrol prices rose extortionately under his party's time in government (see, two can play at the real life attacks game). We understand that the Rt Hon gentleman may feel distaste for the prospect of not allowing fuel duty to fall, and this is in part due to poor wording on my part. Our proposal shall impose a maximum fuel duty of the current value, up to 2015, so that fuel duty is at worst frozen at current levels, but may still be allowed to fall in future tax years.

Our actions have not damaged British sport or culture and the Right Honourable gentlemen has chosen to ignore my follow up to his question by simply issuing more rhetoric. British sport was able to prosper without a DCMS years ago, and is able to do so again. Regardless of this, sport related policy will be taken up on by the Department for Health where necessary, a department which will continue to gain an increase in real terms funding every year going up to 2015, as set out in real life proposals. We could have reversed these, but we didn't.
The Arts Councils are split up into four different councils for each constituent nation of this country, of which three are currently funded by the devolved assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Thus, any changes in funding to those three agencies is up to their respective assemblies and not us. With respect to the Arts Council England, this itself is split up into different bodies for each local government region, and because of this we see no reason why the extra funding cannot be provided by local government in order to give local representatives a personal stake in the arts for their areas.

Mr Speaker I would like to apologise for a mistake on my part, I was of course talking about the first female Muslim MP, but neglected the word "female" from my statement which was in essence a typo as my full intention was to allude to that, thus causing this confusion, apologies of course. But nonetheless, the first female Muslim minister was a Conservative; Baroness Warsi.
The Right Honourable gentleman has shown he has no understanding of our departmental review however, when he suggests we have closed down the DfE; the Department for Education. No such change has occurred, and in fact, our very own party increased education spending last term.

Mr Speaker I would like to acknowledge for a moment the sheer hypocrisy of this member of HM Opposition, who claims I have been practicing my lines in the mirror, and yet he has repeated his little "scissors" line right here in this response. This is a man who clearly must rely on special little buzz phrases to push through his political message.
a) This question is subject to the decisions made by the Foreign Secretary though as I have replied above, no more than 500-750.
b)Again up to the Foreign Secretary, however, when he can easily cope on a budget of £1.2bn, one would expect that at least £5bn will be put into International Development.
I would like to remind the Right Honourable gentleman that there are people in this country struggling, and we must help them first. We have done this by abolishing their centrally levied income tax and VAT.

If we need an urgent carbon treaty, you go to whomever is more apt at responding to the material in said treaty. If it is a regulation matter you go to DfBWP, if it is a matter more suited to energy consumption then you go to DCLG.
To hold a minister account to transport, you hold the Minister for Transport to account, and if necessary his superior, the Communities Secretary.
Again, for a new motorway, the Minister for Transport will be at the forefront.
Again, the Minister for Transport can manage aviation policy though naturally if it specific to one airport I see no reason not to call a superior local representative of that area and a senior member of that airport's management team.
Environmental disaster depends clearly on what the request is, but anyone from the Health Secretary, to the Communities Secretary to the Business and Work Secretary would be able to provide a solution depending on what is required.
Our proposals will not lead to a decrease in accountability in any conceivable way.

Mr Speaker, the Right Honourable gentleman continues to ignore my responses to his previous queries, continues to spout out hypocrisy and continues to think I agree with the ramblings of a Tory Party that was running when I was 4 years old. He claims we do not want devolution, and he is proud of it, just sentences after he cuts into it himself. As I said; hypocrisy. We are proud of devolution and want more, can the Rt Hon gentleman say the same? I don't think he can...

Making 3000 unemployed to benefit the lives and tax receipts of a further 65 Million. Sometimes there is a bigger picture. These people shall continue to recieve the RI, which provides more than enough money to survive and as mentioned to another member of the House, we will look into adjusting these figures soon.

This budget is one designed to create jobs and growth, the Rt Hon gentleman seems to forget that every taxpayer and every business will be better off financially after these proposals pass. If that is reckless, then I think the right honorable gentleman needs to invest in a dictionary.
0
reply
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#107
Report 7 years ago
#107
I am not happy that my points regarding Rail Franchises and stock which are valid have been completely ignored by this Government, They will make the Railways further fragmented.

I get the impression that they don't care about the Railways or national infrastructure schemes like Rail etc.

Its not just the Railways they don't care about it is: equalities, helping other States to develop, national heritage, media, Telecommunications etc aswell.

I am disabled and who will represent me? The answer is NO ONE because they don't care. Who is going to represent the LGBT community? NO ONE. Who is going to represent ethnic minorities? NO ONE. Who is going to represent Women? NO ONE
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#108
Report 7 years ago
#108
(Original post by davidmarsh01)
You could've just quoted me in and asked me?

First off, I'd like to say well done to the government for providing such a lengthy budget. What I'd like to ask first, though, is does this actually change anything? Do these measures actually take place (on TSR of course) without bills being passed? Also, what makes this an "emergency budget" (as stated in the title) as opposed to simply a "budget"?

The start of your report pee-d me off, with the classic Tory "it's the previous government" stance, when nothing has improved economically under the current RL Conservative government, and I think we can now move on and attribute the economic recessions down to a more globalised phenomenon.

When it comes to the closing of departments, I agree pretty much with what eff01 has said here:

eff01I condemn the Chancellor’s unnecessary closing down of government departments. With the Olympic games only a few days away and the first Olympic matches taking place today only a Conservative chancellor could make the decision to close the department that was pivotal (RL) in bringing the games to the United Kingdom. The chancellor says that art can be better managed by the Arts Council, but I ask the chancellor what extra funding will he provide to the Arts Council to deal with the burden of a departmental closure. The chancellor states that media policy can be better dealt with by the DfBWPs, but Mr Speaker, we later discover that the chancellor is slashing the budget of the combined department. This closure symbolises a tory led coalition that has no interest in the culture of the United Kingdom and is not interested in the sporting achievements of our heroic RL athletes in this RL Olympic year! Members of this house I am baffled to why this outrageous step has been taken, that will only save £3billion?

The department closures continue, with the government closing down the department for equalities, this isn’t surprising after all the RL cabinet comprises of only four elected female MPs and no elected MPs from ethnic minorities. I condemn this closure.

On the absorbing of the DfID into the FCO, I would like to ask the Chancellor what will be the new budget for the FCO? Isn’t it right to state that this government by closing the DfID has sent a signal to the international community, that TSRUK is not interested in the struggles and hardships of people living in developing countries, who struggle day and night to earn an honest wage which in many cases is less than $1 a day.

The chancellor has simply gone down the list of government departments and cut without thinking of the consequences or effects. I condemn the closure of the DECC, DfT and DEFRA. The chancellor wants to devolve these responsibilities to local government, but Mr Speaker, the chancellor is cutting the DCLG budget. How does the chancellor envisage local authorities to maintain their roads when he is cutting their budgets!?

I categorically condemn the closure of the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland office. A party that did not in RL opposition support devolution is now, in power launching an attack on devolution. How can the public take seriously the comments of this government on the United Kingdom to stay united when they are cutting their representation in government!


Introducing a "Minister for English Affairs" is unnecessary, seeing as the UK parliament is already completely dominated by English MPs and opinions.

I'm not sure you can actually legislate against a government proposing an unbalanced budget (which is rather ironic seeing as this budget isn't balanced, but hey, at least that answers my question as to why you've called it an "emergency budget"!) because if a future government wants to introduce an unbalanced budget then quite frankly they will. What if a budget actually offers a surplus to the government?

While I agree that abolishing VAT is a good thing, this really does question our membership of the EU, and quite frankly we should be kicked out of the MUN EU because of this. I suppose this is the government's round-a-bout way of managing to leave the EU without causing a fuss though, because you can now just say "we didn't leave, we were kicked out!". I know you're going to cite the Canon Amendment, and I'm aware of it and it's function, but in doing things we should really still have a think about how stuff is going to affect the UK on the world stage (and indeed other countries).

Sorry about my "tl;dr" post last night, I didn't have time to read it last night and it was a pretty bad way of putting it, and in hindsight I should've just left it until today and said nothing.
Thankyou. I'm glad someone asked this question, the answer is effectively, no. This presentation doesn't actually change anything itself, but it merely a documentation of the changes we want to bring in. Essentially it is an initial presentation of our economic plans, for scrutiny and other purposes. We will then bring these proposals into law through the release of a number of bills in the future - it will not all come at once. The way I like to think of it is as a "0th reading" to our finance bills.

I decided to call it an emergency budget because usually, you won't get a budget happening outside of March. This budget effectively acts upon and changes Osborne's one, much in the same way his did with Darling's final budget back in 2010 (we have the Labour March budget and the Tory June emergency budget)

I'll apologise for that jab at the start, it's something that was there from the beginning, I'm not going to state what my opinion is simple because this is the wrong forum to have a real life debate in really. But yes, I should have just tried to jump straight into the rest of the budget rather than dress it up.

Introducing a Minister for English Affairs is our attempt in part to lessen the effect of the West Lothian question, which still proves to be a problem with our political system. Naturally this won't get rid of the problem but should help alleviate it's effects.

I assure you that whilst I and obviously my UKIP coalition partners would like to see us leaving the EU, many members in our Government would not. The Prime Minister himself, and TehFrance, being just two examples of pro-EU people in our Government. Even if I had tried to push through a backdoor leaving of the EU, it would have been stopped by them. So it is nothing of the sort.
Alas, I am going to quote the Canon Amendment, because that is why we're allowed to overrule EU law.
We're actually already breaking the EU law you're talking about, in which member states must have a minimum 15% VAT rate. We're already breaking that with a 4% rate. By going to 0%, we're not really breaking anything more than we've already done.

That's alright.
0
reply
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#109
Report 7 years ago
#109
(Original post by Jarred)
Thankyou. I'm glad someone asked this question, the answer is effectively, no. This presentation doesn't actually change anything itself, but it merely a documentation of the changes we want to bring in. Essentially it is an initial presentation of our economic plans, for scrutiny and other purposes. We will then bring these proposals into law through the release of a number of bills in the future - it will not all come at once. The way I like to think of it is as a "0th reading" to our finance bills.

I decided to call it an emergency budget because usually, you won't get a budget happening outside of March. This budget effectively acts upon and changes Osborne's one, much in the same way his did with Darling's final budget back in 2010 (we have the Labour March budget and the Tory June emergency budget)

I'll apologise for that jab at the start, it's something that was there from the beginning, I'm not going to state what my opinion is simple because this is the wrong forum to have a real life debate in really. But yes, I should have just tried to jump straight into the rest of the budget rather than dress it up.

Introducing a Minister for English Affairs is our attempt in part to lessen the effect of the West Lothian question, which still proves to be a problem with our political system. Naturally this won't get rid of the problem but should help alleviate it's effects.

I assure you that whilst I and obviously my UKIP coalition partners would like to see us leaving the EU, many members in our Government would not. The Prime Minister himself, and TehFrance, being just two examples of pro-EU people in our Government. Even if I had tried to push through a backdoor leaving of the EU, it would have been stopped by them. So it is nothing of the sort.
Alas, I am going to quote the Canon Amendment, because that is why we're allowed to overrule EU law.
We're actually already breaking the EU law you're talking about, in which member states must have a minimum 15% VAT rate. We're already breaking that with a 4% rate. By going to 0%, we're not really breaking anything more than we've already done.

That's alright.
Your breaching quite a few EU Laws, I will give you another example: repatriation of Transport which is conflicting Articles 90-100 TFEU even though Article 4 TFEU states Transport is shared.

TFEU stands for Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I have stuck to the TEU and TFEU in my other capacity.
0
reply
Matthew_Lowson
Badges: 17
#110
Report 7 years ago
#110
(Original post by Morgsie)
I am not happy that my points regarding Rail Franchises and stock which are valid have been completely ignored by this Government, They will make the Railways further fragmented.

I get the impression that they don't care about the Railways or national infrastructure schemes like Rail etc.

Its not just the Railways they don't care about it is: equalities, helping other States to develop, national heritage, media, Telecommunications etc aswell.

I am disabled and who will represent me? The answer is NO ONE because they don't care. Who is going to represent the LGBT community? NO ONE. Who is going to represent ethnic minorities? NO ONE. Who is going to represent Women? NO ONE
not even the Lib Dems?
0
reply
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#111
Report 7 years ago
#111
(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
not even the Lib Dems?
You don't and us and Labour do.

I have always championed equalities in this House.

We should be making this House more diverse, not slapping people in the faces with the Reckless closures of various Departments
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112
(Original post by Morgsie)
I am not happy that my points regarding Rail Franchises and stock which are valid have been completely ignored by this Government, They will make the Railways further fragmented.

I get the impression that they don't care about the Railways or national infrastructure schemes like Rail etc.

Its not just the Railways they don't care about it is: equalities, helping other States to develop, national heritage, media, Telecommunications etc aswell.

I am disabled and who will represent me? The answer is NO ONE because they don't care. Who is going to represent the LGBT community? NO ONE. Who is going to represent ethnic minorities? NO ONE. Who is going to represent Women? NO ONE
Mr Speaker, i believe that the honorable gentlemen across from me is being over critical in these regards. Mr Speaker, in regards to the railways Morgsie believes that an independent department is needed, this is simply not true. Mr Speaker, there will still be a Minister For Transport and Mr Speaker, this minister will still retain the vast majority of the powers he has now. The railways will simply be devolved to a degree with responsibility for local rail infrastructure being at the mercy of the local authority who will pay for this via levying their own income tax and perhaps even corporation tax. Mr Speaker, i also resent the assertion that this government does not care about the railways considering that in February it was the Conservative Party which championed the most radical reform of the railways put before this House, reforms which were only rejected by Morgsie due to a fare issue and on top of that it was the Conservative Party which championed the large infrastructure projects of desalinization plants and Thorium nuclear energy which will be legislated for and announced in the next budget in the coming months.

Mr Speaker, in regards to equalities, helping other States to develop, national heritage, media and Telecommunications, none of these require their own departments. Other departments are fully capable of ensuring that discrimination does not occur, International Development will still occur and heritage, media and telecommunications can best be protected via an independent body.

Mr Speaker, in answer to the above question the answer is that this government as a whole will represent you. This government has not sought to discriminate against yourselves and this government is committed to the further enhancement of your civil liberties. Mr Speaker, this government is fair for all.

Mr Speaker, despite my past reverence for Morgsie i fear that these thoughts are the ramblings of somebody believing in a big, socialistic government and i hope that neither Morgsie or any other Liberal Democrat continue to drink from the poisoned chalice of the left for i fear that this is where these thoughts have come from.
0
reply
eff01
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#113
Report 7 years ago
#113
(Original post by Jarred)
QFA
Arrogance, arrogance, arrogance! Mr Speaker, the chancellor has made 3,000 people unemployed and he doesn’t have the humility to show remorse for his actions.

Oh I see Mr Speaker, only two days after this budget was announced to the house the chancellor is already making u-turns. After feeling the pressure from the opposition the chancellor has backed down and is now saying that fuel duty will be allowed to fall despite this freeze!

I’m afraid Mr Speaker, the Rt Honourable gentlemen and his government HAVE attacked British sporting and culture. With the Olympic opening ceremony a few hours away and the whole world watching us, Mr Speaker this out of touch government by closing the DCMS has given out the message that Britain places no value on its sportspersons, no value on its incredible art history and no value on its cultural achievements. The government can defend this all they want, but the truth is that this is an attack on British culture and we in the strongest terms possible condemn it!

Mr Speaker, this chancellor in this budget has shifted responsibilities from his shoulders and placed it onto the shoulders of others. Mr Speaker, could the chancellor answer these questions a) how much extra funding does he propose local government give the Art Council? B) Will this inevitably lead to tax increases for citizens? C) How does the government propose Tyne and Wear Museums fund themselves? D) As a result of DCMS closure will there be a cut to the British Library and Museum, if so how much and if not how much money will the chancellor direct towards these public buildings? The chancellor’s departmental closures are poorly though-out and unnecessary.

Mr Speaker, you know the government is having a bad day when they result to using the example of an unelected baroness and claim she is an MP, to champion equality. Let me remind the chancellor, who was the party to first have a Muslim minister, Labour! Who is the party that has the UK’s first female Muslim MPs, Labour! Which party has the largest number of ethnic minorities and women represented on its backbenches Labour! Which party has two shadow cabinet members representing the LGBT community, Labour! Mr Speaker, in this RL debate on equality, the Labour Party has more ground to stand on than the party that the Rt honourable gentlemen is affiliated with!

My Speaker, the people demand an answer, how many jobs will go at the FCO as a result of the chancellor’s cuts? It is not acceptable to simply state that somewhere between 500 and 750 people will be made unemployed. The fact of the matter is that the chancellor doesn’t know! We have a chancellor here who has closed down departmental offices, made people unemployed and does not know the consequences of his actions! He doesn’t have the facts.

May I ask the chancellor if the United Kingdom wants to bid for a major sporting event which department will be in charge of that bid, The DfH?

Mr Speaker, the chancellor needs to stop using the age card; after all he is closing down the office for equalities. Mr Speaker, as I have said before, we on this side of the house are proud of devolution, proud of our record on devolution. The party opposite have attacked devolution and continue to attack it.

This chancellor, Mr Speaker, is out of touch, shows no remorse and lacks humility. He states that this budget is better than the RL one, but Mr Speaker the reality is, that it is only in this position because the chancellor has slashed departments and made people unemployed. Mr Speaker this budget says nothing about jobs, nothing about growth and nothing about young people. This budget has sent a message out to the international community that Britain is not interested in your issues, the plight of poor people struggling to support their families despite earning an honest wage. This budget has sent a message to our athletes that this government doesn’t care. This budget has sent a message to art community that the chancellor isn’t interested in your talents your achievements. Mr Speaker I urge the out of touch chancellor to show a little remorse and refrain from making jokes about dictionaries when he is cutting the ID budget.

Mr Speaker, this budge is poorly though out, shambolic and reckless. It has placed thousands of jobs in jeopardy and left thousands more uncertain about their future. Mr Speaker, the people think the chancellor is out of touch and we agree with them. The people, Mr Speaker, deserve better.
1
reply
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
(Original post by Morgsie)
I am disabled and who will represent me? The answer is NO ONE because they don't care. Who is going to represent the LGBT community? NO ONE. Who is going to represent ethnic minorities? NO ONE. Who is going to represent Women? NO ONE
Why must you bring into every argument that you are disabled? stop playing that card as it has lost all meaning.

And what do you mean who will represent the Disabled, LGB, Ethnic Minorities and Women? obviously they will represent themselves, have you heard of lobbying? :holmes:
0
reply
meenu89
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
(Original post by Morgsie)

Who is going to represent ethnic minorities? NO ONE. Who is going to represent Women? NO ONE
As a member of an Ethnic Minority(British Indian) and a woman can we not be represented by the best person for job? Do they have to a member of an ethnic minority or a woman? Do we have to have positive discrimination?
1
reply
Dizzy94
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
(Original post by Metrobeans)
Know nothing about politics, dont know what a budget it, but that post is mighty impressive!
0
reply
ukip72
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#117
Report 7 years ago
#117
(Original post by meenu89)
As a member of an Ethnic Minority(British Indian) and a woman can we not be represented by the best person for job? Do they have to a member of an ethnic minority or a woman? Do we have to have positive discrimination?
Exactly, someone speaking some sense.
0
reply
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#118
Report 7 years ago
#118
(Original post by Marcuse)
White upper-class men are at the top.
Whoa whoa whoa.... hold your horses!!! What does being white have to do with being in the upper(-middle) classes? I know a lot of non-white people in the upper(-middle) classes!!
0
reply
ukip72
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#119
Report 7 years ago
#119
(Original post by Marcuse)
Positive discrimination is a good thing. If people are unfairly handicapped by something beyong their choosing then the best effort should be made to remove the barriers. Meritocracy does not exist; look at business -- women are not worse at business than men, neither are black people, neither are poor people; despite this white upper-class men are at the top. The upmost should be done to break up the strangle hold one group has on the top in all areas.
Other things can be done to help people from minority groups get to the top, there is no need to resort to positive discrimination which is just degrading.
0
reply
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#120
Report 7 years ago
#120
(Original post by Marcuse)
The upper-class is less diverse than lower social-economic groups...
The upper class in this country is royalty... the stranglehold (according to you) on business is the upper-middle class.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (23)
6.99%
They might tell the bully (32)
9.73%
I don't think they'd understand (49)
14.89%
It might lead to more bullying (124)
37.69%
There's nothing they could do (101)
30.7%

Watched Threads

View All