Jump to content

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)


blandy

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

The optimist in me hopes he's referring to also spending money to combat rural poverty and not just urban. 

However, the realist in me suspects that's not the case here. 

Tunbridge Wells is the least deprived local authority area in the whole of Kent. Just a little snippet for the fact fans

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we know exactly what he was referring to? Because although I obviously don't agree with diverting funds from poor to rich areas, I also think it's entirely reasonable for wealthy areas to have decent roads and working streetlights and maintained parkland - is he he saying that the deprived areas have previously been better maintained?

For instance, I think that maintenance of Sutton Park is just as important as maintenance of Perry Park even though the people of Sutton are generally (but not exclusively) better off than the residents of Perry Barr.

Of course, I highly doubt he'll be talking about anything reasonable because it's Sunak but you never know....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Do we know exactly what he was referring to? Because although I obviously don't agree with diverting funds from poor to rich areas, I also think it's entirely reasonable for wealthy areas to have decent roads and working streetlights and maintained parkland - is he he saying that the deprived areas have previously been better maintained?

For instance, I think that maintenance of Sutton Park is just as important as maintenance of Perry Park even though the people of Sutton are generally (but not exclusively) better off than the residents of Perry Barr.

Of course, I highly doubt he'll be talking about anything reasonable because it's Sunak but you never know....

The topic of conversation was the Levelling Up fund I thought. Nothing to do with roads or services

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, bickster said:

The topic of conversation was the Levelling Up fund I thought. Nothing to do with roads or services

Fair enough, I couldn't tell from the snippets I've seen. And that would be bang in character for Sunak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Do we know exactly what he was referring to? Because although I obviously don't agree with diverting funds from poor to rich areas, I also think it's entirely reasonable for wealthy areas to have decent roads and working streetlights and maintained parkland - is he he saying that the deprived areas have previously been better maintained?

For instance, I think that maintenance of Sutton Park is just as important as maintenance of Perry Park even though the people of Sutton are generally (but not exclusively) better off than the residents of Perry Barr.

Of course, I highly doubt he'll be talking about anything reasonable because it's Sunak but you never know....

To be as generous as possible I think he was trying to make an argument that Labour have rigged investment criteria to favour their urban heartlands whilst regional towns who typically vote conservative are missing out on government help. I guess it was meant to be a variation on the usual complaint that ‘London gets all the investment’, playing to the local audience at hand.

However he managed to make his argument in the most ham-fisted way possible 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bickster said:

They want an end to cancel culture you hear...

 

Not this bollocks again. Universities are for education in its widest sense, including subjects like history, philosophy, literature, etc., not just industrial and financial management training. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â