Open letter urges local Conservatives not to reselect Thirsk and Malton MP Anne McIntosh

York Press: Thirsk and Malton MP Anne McIntosh Thirsk and Malton MP Anne McIntosh

An internal political war is continuing in a North Yorkshire constituency – with an open letter to members of a local Conservative association urging them not to reselect their current MP.

The letter, jointly written by local members George Winn-Darley and Victor Buchanan, demands an end to a “poisonous situation” and levels various criticisms at Thirsk and Malton MP Anne McIntosh.

It comes as ballot papers were due to be sent out to all 560 association members to decide who should defend the Tories' majority of more than 11,000 at the next general election.

Miss McIntosh, 59, said she would not comment on what was a democratic internal party process, but would be delighted to do so once the ballot results was known.

In the letter, Mr Buchanan and Mr Winn Darley say: “We believe Thirsk and Malton deserves a more effective MP. “Many constituents feel Miss McIntosh’s responses on issues raised directly with her have fallen short of what they expected and that she has displayed poor judgement on key local issues.”

They also claim promises made after a previous 2009 deselection meeting to improve communication and access to her diary were not kept.

“We believe it is untenable to have an MP who cannot work with her local party.

“Opinion may differ as to Miss McIntosh’s record as a politician, but no one can deny that these divisions have gone on far too long.

“With regret, we say that this poisonous situation cannot be allowed to continue.”

Miss McIntosh, who is chairman of the influential Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee has been involved in a year-long battle, after the executive of Thirsk and Malton Conservative Association voted last January against automatically readopting her as their candidate.

Party chiefs later said the decision was technically invalid.

This summer supporters presented a 300-signature petition to Downing Street calling for her to be automatically readopted.

Last month she was one of just two MPs in the region to pledge she would give away a proposed £7,600 pay increase to charities and good causes.

Ballot papers were due to be sent out today with the result, which will be binding, due on January 31.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:33am Fri 10 Jan 14

myselby says...

Putting politics aside I believe that Anne McIntosh is a fantastic constituency MP, she has many years experience of working for local communities in what is a very large and diverse area. I am not a Tory voter, but respect the work she does both for the constituency and the country with the work she undertakes in parliament defening and promoting the rual areas. I hope she wins this un nessessery ballot.
Putting politics aside I believe that Anne McIntosh is a fantastic constituency MP, she has many years experience of working for local communities in what is a very large and diverse area. I am not a Tory voter, but respect the work she does both for the constituency and the country with the work she undertakes in parliament defening and promoting the rual areas. I hope she wins this un nessessery ballot. myselby
  • Score: -6

10:06am Fri 10 Jan 14

eeoodares says...

The electorate like and respect her. She obviously will not kowtow to the local grumpy old men and they want to replace her.
Stand your ground, it is the voters that count. Keep standing up for the Countryside.
The electorate like and respect her. She obviously will not kowtow to the local grumpy old men and they want to replace her. Stand your ground, it is the voters that count. Keep standing up for the Countryside. eeoodares
  • Score: -5

10:06am Fri 10 Jan 14

Zetkin says...

I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.
I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected. Zetkin
  • Score: 20

10:21am Fri 10 Jan 14

again says...

I always got the impression that she is an effective MP. Maybe she is not bigotted enough for some?
I always got the impression that she is an effective MP. Maybe she is not bigotted enough for some? again
  • Score: 5

10:23am Fri 10 Jan 14

dsom73 says...

If you aren't eligible for 100's of 1000's of pounds of European subsidies, Anne McIntosh really doesn't care whether you live or die. She does not stand for the majority of her constituents, nor was she democratically re-elected at the last election - by the time we all got to vote, the coalition was already moved in and so only the Tory voters bothered turning up.

And now her own party are turning on her - excellent.
If you aren't eligible for 100's of 1000's of pounds of European subsidies, Anne McIntosh really doesn't care whether you live or die. She does not stand for the majority of her constituents, nor was she democratically re-elected at the last election - by the time we all got to vote, the coalition was already moved in and so only the Tory voters bothered turning up. And now her own party are turning on her - excellent. dsom73
  • Score: 15

12:26pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Fat Harry says...

again wrote:
I always got the impression that she is an effective MP. Maybe she is not bigotted enough for some?
She's more than bigoted enough for most.
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: I always got the impression that she is an effective MP. Maybe she is not bigotted enough for some?[/p][/quote]She's more than bigoted enough for most. Fat Harry
  • Score: 2

1:24pm Fri 10 Jan 14

YorkPatrol says...

Zetkin wrote:
I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.
What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country?
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.[/p][/quote]What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country? YorkPatrol
  • Score: -5

1:44pm Fri 10 Jan 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

In 2005 Anne McIntosh was the MP for Vale of York, it was a safe seat, this is the way it is and I make no comment on that.
However in interest of a reasonable discussion the Methodist church in Haxby set up what would be the only hustings in the area. All the major parties standing were invited and the Labour and LD candidates turned up and happily answered questions and generally endeared themselves to the roughly 150 people who attended.
After the initial invite Mrs McIntosh in no uncertain terms told the local minister that she did not need to attend and wouldn't
The minister contacted her again later and was told using some choice language that she wouldn't be attending and implied it was beneath her.

I'd love this conceited woman to lose her seat, would serve her right for the contempt she holds for the locals that she is meant to represent (I can't imagine her views have changed much in another safe seat)
In 2005 Anne McIntosh was the MP for Vale of York, it was a safe seat, this is the way it is and I make no comment on that. However in interest of a reasonable discussion the Methodist church in Haxby set up what would be the only hustings in the area. All the major parties standing were invited and the Labour and LD candidates turned up and happily answered questions and generally endeared themselves to the roughly 150 people who attended. After the initial invite Mrs McIntosh in no uncertain terms told the local minister that she did not need to attend and wouldn't The minister contacted her again later and was told using some choice language that she wouldn't be attending and implied it was beneath her. I'd love this conceited woman to lose her seat, would serve her right for the contempt she holds for the locals that she is meant to represent (I can't imagine her views have changed much in another safe seat) AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: 7

2:38pm Fri 10 Jan 14

twotonethomas says...

Fat Harry wrote:
again wrote:
I always got the impression that she is an effective MP. Maybe she is not bigotted enough for some?
She's more than bigoted enough for most.
Supports illegal bloodsports and opposes the rights of adults to marry the person they love.

Typical bigoted tory I'd say.
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: I always got the impression that she is an effective MP. Maybe she is not bigotted enough for some?[/p][/quote]She's more than bigoted enough for most.[/p][/quote]Supports illegal bloodsports and opposes the rights of adults to marry the person they love. Typical bigoted tory I'd say. twotonethomas
  • Score: 8

2:45pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Roger S says...

Can't please all the people all the time, nor can you give more quality time than you have. Having said that she needs to be the members choice I would think. If she has a good record let her defend it and move on either way. It seems some people probably want to challenge but they may find it hard to pip her on experience, etc. She did already win one vote to stay in held in Malton 2009 so maybe at some point you have to say it's destructive to keep bringing it up and undermining her. If you really try you can besmirch anyone in life. Maybe 4 years is long enough to review it.
Can't please all the people all the time, nor can you give more quality time than you have. Having said that she needs to be the members choice I would think. If she has a good record let her defend it and move on either way. It seems some people probably want to challenge but they may find it hard to pip her on experience, etc. She did already win one vote to stay in held in Malton 2009 so maybe at some point you have to say it's destructive to keep bringing it up and undermining her. If you really try you can besmirch anyone in life. Maybe 4 years is long enough to review it. Roger S
  • Score: -1

3:02pm Fri 10 Jan 14

the otter says...

i would never vote for this woman or any other tory after what they done to the to n h s after saying we wont touch it and people are right she does not care .
i would never vote for this woman or any other tory after what they done to the to n h s after saying we wont touch it and people are right she does not care . the otter
  • Score: 5

3:45pm Fri 10 Jan 14

perplexed says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.
What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country?
Despite David Cameron’s talk of “austerity”, it is estimated that he will add an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. That’s more than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown added to the national debt in eleven years. It’s more than every British government of the past 100 years put together!
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.[/p][/quote]What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country?[/p][/quote]Despite David Cameron’s talk of “austerity”, it is estimated that he will add an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. That’s more than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown added to the national debt in eleven years. It’s more than every British government of the past 100 years put together! perplexed
  • Score: 12

4:24pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Pmlwdw says...

Have emailed her to discuss her anti gay views following a radio 4 interview. She refused to reply as we are not constituents. So she thinks its fair to have one sided debates.... She can say what she likes to the whole country but she doesn't believe in talking to folk who have an alternative view. She was our local MP and was useless. I am no Tory esn, but our new MP Julian Sturdy has the courtesy to engage with his constituents .

Pleased to see the back of her.....
Have emailed her to discuss her anti gay views following a radio 4 interview. She refused to reply as we are not constituents. So she thinks its fair to have one sided debates.... She can say what she likes to the whole country but she doesn't believe in talking to folk who have an alternative view. She was our local MP and was useless. I am no Tory esn, but our new MP Julian Sturdy has the courtesy to engage with his constituents . Pleased to see the back of her..... Pmlwdw
  • Score: 11

5:36pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Brian G0AHC says...

Ms McIntosh has consistently refused to support Kirkbymoorside's campaign against the 'Gladman' scheme; her complacent attitude is in marked contrast to MPs in other parts of the country where towns are threatened by outsize developments on greenfield sites. How can this be seen as concern for the character of Ryedale?
Ms McIntosh has consistently refused to support Kirkbymoorside's campaign against the 'Gladman' scheme; her complacent attitude is in marked contrast to MPs in other parts of the country where towns are threatened by outsize developments on greenfield sites. How can this be seen as concern for the character of Ryedale? Brian G0AHC
  • Score: 6

6:32pm Fri 10 Jan 14

YorkPatrol says...

perplexed wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.
What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country?
Despite David Cameron’s talk of “austerity”, it is estimated that he will add an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. That’s more than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown added to the national debt in eleven years. It’s more than every British government of the past 100 years put together!
Over use of the word estimated but a poignant point with this only being an actual “estimate” but had you been factually correct you would have also stated that a significant proportion of this estimate was already committed spend under the previous Labour Government such as the horrendous Iraq war whereby the spend could simply not be cut the moment the Conservatives took charge, another example is the free loaders paradise that is the Labour introduced enhanced benefits system - another cost that could not be cut overnight come the Conservatives rein, then there’s immigration, PPI projects etc etc...all committed, uncontrolled spend under Labour. There was even evidence that when Labour had a clear indication they weren’t going to be re-elected they deliberated set out to , let’s say, “make things difficult” for the predecessors.

I doubt you are interested in the actual facts but it amazes me that comments are posted without research or an in-depth subject knowledge all in an effort to bolster a one-sided view and to pollute the minds of the weak.
[quote][p][bold]perplexed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.[/p][/quote]What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country?[/p][/quote]Despite David Cameron’s talk of “austerity”, it is estimated that he will add an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. That’s more than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown added to the national debt in eleven years. It’s more than every British government of the past 100 years put together![/p][/quote]Over use of the word estimated but a poignant point with this only being an actual “estimate” but had you been factually correct you would have also stated that a significant proportion of this estimate was already committed spend under the previous Labour Government such as the horrendous Iraq war whereby the spend could simply not be cut the moment the Conservatives took charge, another example is the free loaders paradise that is the Labour introduced enhanced benefits system - another cost that could not be cut overnight come the Conservatives rein, then there’s immigration, PPI projects etc etc...all committed, uncontrolled spend under Labour. There was even evidence that when Labour had a clear indication they weren’t going to be re-elected they deliberated set out to , let’s say, “make things difficult” for the predecessors. I doubt you are interested in the actual facts but it amazes me that comments are posted without research or an in-depth subject knowledge all in an effort to bolster a one-sided view and to pollute the minds of the weak. YorkPatrol
  • Score: -3

8:12pm Fri 10 Jan 14

twotonethomas says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
perplexed wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.
What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country?
Despite David Cameron’s talk of “austerity”, it is estimated that he will add an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. That’s more than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown added to the national debt in eleven years. It’s more than every British government of the past 100 years put together!
Over use of the word estimated but a poignant point with this only being an actual “estimate” but had you been factually correct you would have also stated that a significant proportion of this estimate was already committed spend under the previous Labour Government such as the horrendous Iraq war whereby the spend could simply not be cut the moment the Conservatives took charge, another example is the free loaders paradise that is the Labour introduced enhanced benefits system - another cost that could not be cut overnight come the Conservatives rein, then there’s immigration, PPI projects etc etc...all committed, uncontrolled spend under Labour. There was even evidence that when Labour had a clear indication they weren’t going to be re-elected they deliberated set out to , let’s say, “make things difficult” for the predecessors.

I doubt you are interested in the actual facts but it amazes me that comments are posted without research or an in-depth subject knowledge all in an effort to bolster a one-sided view and to pollute the minds of the weak.
How exactly did Labour 'make things difficult for the predecessors?'

People in glass houses etc,
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]perplexed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.[/p][/quote]What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country?[/p][/quote]Despite David Cameron’s talk of “austerity”, it is estimated that he will add an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. That’s more than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown added to the national debt in eleven years. It’s more than every British government of the past 100 years put together![/p][/quote]Over use of the word estimated but a poignant point with this only being an actual “estimate” but had you been factually correct you would have also stated that a significant proportion of this estimate was already committed spend under the previous Labour Government such as the horrendous Iraq war whereby the spend could simply not be cut the moment the Conservatives took charge, another example is the free loaders paradise that is the Labour introduced enhanced benefits system - another cost that could not be cut overnight come the Conservatives rein, then there’s immigration, PPI projects etc etc...all committed, uncontrolled spend under Labour. There was even evidence that when Labour had a clear indication they weren’t going to be re-elected they deliberated set out to , let’s say, “make things difficult” for the predecessors. I doubt you are interested in the actual facts but it amazes me that comments are posted without research or an in-depth subject knowledge all in an effort to bolster a one-sided view and to pollute the minds of the weak.[/p][/quote]How exactly did Labour 'make things difficult for the predecessors?' People in glass houses etc, twotonethomas
  • Score: 3

8:29pm Fri 10 Jan 14

piaggio1 says...

Er me thinks the little note left in the drawer.....
There.s nowt left.we spent it.
And as for liebours PPI........
There again.if you want to know about liebours coruption?
Just take a look at glasgow city council...
Oh sorry.went a bit of track there.
Er me thinks the little note left in the drawer..... There.s nowt left.we spent it. And as for liebours PPI........ There again.if you want to know about liebours coruption? Just take a look at glasgow city council... Oh sorry.went a bit of track there. piaggio1
  • Score: 0

11:41pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Caecilius says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
perplexed wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.
What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country?
Despite David Cameron’s talk of “austerity”, it is estimated that he will add an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. That’s more than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown added to the national debt in eleven years. It’s more than every British government of the past 100 years put together!
Over use of the word estimated but a poignant point with this only being an actual “estimate” but had you been factually correct you would have also stated that a significant proportion of this estimate was already committed spend under the previous Labour Government such as the horrendous Iraq war whereby the spend could simply not be cut the moment the Conservatives took charge, another example is the free loaders paradise that is the Labour introduced enhanced benefits system - another cost that could not be cut overnight come the Conservatives rein, then there’s immigration, PPI projects etc etc...all committed, uncontrolled spend under Labour. There was even evidence that when Labour had a clear indication they weren’t going to be re-elected they deliberated set out to , let’s say, “make things difficult” for the predecessors.

I doubt you are interested in the actual facts but it amazes me that comments are posted without research or an in-depth subject knowledge all in an effort to bolster a one-sided view and to pollute the minds of the weak.
You talk of "actual facts" yet you post a barrow-load of spluttering Daily Mail bile. Everyone on benefits, including the people who have lost their jobs because of the world economic crisis caused by the criminal greed of financiers, or who have to claim income support because of the pitiful salary paid by their wealthy, parasitic employer, is a "freeloader"? Rubbish. It's Tory-supporting bosses who want mass immigration, because they want dirt-cheap labour to undercut British workers, drive down wages and working conditions and line their own pockets. As for PPI, the Tories would sell their own grandmothers to enrich themselves: they flogged the utilities off for a pittance and, as we all know, the result is soaring prices and fat Tory-supporting piggies gorging themselves at ordinary people's expense. How weak-minded do you have to be to welcome having your face stamped on?
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]perplexed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.[/p][/quote]What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country?[/p][/quote]Despite David Cameron’s talk of “austerity”, it is estimated that he will add an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. That’s more than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown added to the national debt in eleven years. It’s more than every British government of the past 100 years put together![/p][/quote]Over use of the word estimated but a poignant point with this only being an actual “estimate” but had you been factually correct you would have also stated that a significant proportion of this estimate was already committed spend under the previous Labour Government such as the horrendous Iraq war whereby the spend could simply not be cut the moment the Conservatives took charge, another example is the free loaders paradise that is the Labour introduced enhanced benefits system - another cost that could not be cut overnight come the Conservatives rein, then there’s immigration, PPI projects etc etc...all committed, uncontrolled spend under Labour. There was even evidence that when Labour had a clear indication they weren’t going to be re-elected they deliberated set out to , let’s say, “make things difficult” for the predecessors. I doubt you are interested in the actual facts but it amazes me that comments are posted without research or an in-depth subject knowledge all in an effort to bolster a one-sided view and to pollute the minds of the weak.[/p][/quote]You talk of "actual facts" yet you post a barrow-load of spluttering Daily Mail bile. Everyone on benefits, including the people who have lost their jobs because of the world economic crisis caused by the criminal greed of financiers, or who have to claim income support because of the pitiful salary paid by their wealthy, parasitic employer, is a "freeloader"? Rubbish. It's Tory-supporting bosses who want mass immigration, because they want dirt-cheap labour to undercut British workers, drive down wages and working conditions and line their own pockets. As for PPI, the Tories would sell their own grandmothers to enrich themselves: they flogged the utilities off for a pittance and, as we all know, the result is soaring prices and fat Tory-supporting piggies gorging themselves at ordinary people's expense. How weak-minded do you have to be to welcome having your face stamped on? Caecilius
  • Score: 5

11:56am Sun 12 Jan 14

YorkPatrol says...

Caecilius wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
perplexed wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.
What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country?
Despite David Cameron’s talk of “austerity”, it is estimated that he will add an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. That’s more than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown added to the national debt in eleven years. It’s more than every British government of the past 100 years put together!
Over use of the word estimated but a poignant point with this only being an actual “estimate” but had you been factually correct you would have also stated that a significant proportion of this estimate was already committed spend under the previous Labour Government such as the horrendous Iraq war whereby the spend could simply not be cut the moment the Conservatives took charge, another example is the free loaders paradise that is the Labour introduced enhanced benefits system - another cost that could not be cut overnight come the Conservatives rein, then there’s immigration, PPI projects etc etc...all committed, uncontrolled spend under Labour. There was even evidence that when Labour had a clear indication they weren’t going to be re-elected they deliberated set out to , let’s say, “make things difficult” for the predecessors.

I doubt you are interested in the actual facts but it amazes me that comments are posted without research or an in-depth subject knowledge all in an effort to bolster a one-sided view and to pollute the minds of the weak.
You talk of "actual facts" yet you post a barrow-load of spluttering Daily Mail bile. Everyone on benefits, including the people who have lost their jobs because of the world economic crisis caused by the criminal greed of financiers, or who have to claim income support because of the pitiful salary paid by their wealthy, parasitic employer, is a "freeloader"? Rubbish. It's Tory-supporting bosses who want mass immigration, because they want dirt-cheap labour to undercut British workers, drive down wages and working conditions and line their own pockets. As for PPI, the Tories would sell their own grandmothers to enrich themselves: they flogged the utilities off for a pittance and, as we all know, the result is soaring prices and fat Tory-supporting piggies gorging themselves at ordinary people's expense. How weak-minded do you have to be to welcome having your face stamped on?
Wow! I'm speechless as to how misguided and ill-informed you are..
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]perplexed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: I'd like to see all the Tories de-selected.[/p][/quote]What so Labour can have another go at ruining and bankrupting the country?[/p][/quote]Despite David Cameron’s talk of “austerity”, it is estimated that he will add an estimated £700 billion to the national debt in just five years. That’s more than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown added to the national debt in eleven years. It’s more than every British government of the past 100 years put together![/p][/quote]Over use of the word estimated but a poignant point with this only being an actual “estimate” but had you been factually correct you would have also stated that a significant proportion of this estimate was already committed spend under the previous Labour Government such as the horrendous Iraq war whereby the spend could simply not be cut the moment the Conservatives took charge, another example is the free loaders paradise that is the Labour introduced enhanced benefits system - another cost that could not be cut overnight come the Conservatives rein, then there’s immigration, PPI projects etc etc...all committed, uncontrolled spend under Labour. There was even evidence that when Labour had a clear indication they weren’t going to be re-elected they deliberated set out to , let’s say, “make things difficult” for the predecessors. I doubt you are interested in the actual facts but it amazes me that comments are posted without research or an in-depth subject knowledge all in an effort to bolster a one-sided view and to pollute the minds of the weak.[/p][/quote]You talk of "actual facts" yet you post a barrow-load of spluttering Daily Mail bile. Everyone on benefits, including the people who have lost their jobs because of the world economic crisis caused by the criminal greed of financiers, or who have to claim income support because of the pitiful salary paid by their wealthy, parasitic employer, is a "freeloader"? Rubbish. It's Tory-supporting bosses who want mass immigration, because they want dirt-cheap labour to undercut British workers, drive down wages and working conditions and line their own pockets. As for PPI, the Tories would sell their own grandmothers to enrich themselves: they flogged the utilities off for a pittance and, as we all know, the result is soaring prices and fat Tory-supporting piggies gorging themselves at ordinary people's expense. How weak-minded do you have to be to welcome having your face stamped on?[/p][/quote]Wow! I'm speechless as to how misguided and ill-informed you are.. YorkPatrol
  • Score: 0

11:38am Mon 13 Jan 14

Roger S says...

I would say the fact the Tories have reduced the budget deficit but the debt is increasing more than ever proves the point that Labour wrecked the job or would have been on course for far worse. Assuming the poster was correct with the £700 billion.

Public opinion is always divided but it is said when Labour took over the Tories finally had things in a pretty decent shape, gold in reserve etc. Now it's gone.

My only hope is that all the money spent on schools and projects has a long term benefit. It's a big gamble. HOw true GB when he said "no more boom and bust". Just bust if he had been left.

As a country we need to stop using the poor as our excuse for everything because the rich are getting richer and the people in the middle running the small businesses suffer the most. Only the tories come close to helping them I would say. I'm not a tory voter or member.

The lack of help for small business is one reason those fortunate enough to have money left prefer to buy property, wine, ftse shares etc than put it into businesses where your staff are better treated than you or your competitors overseas turn out crap you wouldn't get away with where life and labour is cheap.
I would say the fact the Tories have reduced the budget deficit but the debt is increasing more than ever proves the point that Labour wrecked the job or would have been on course for far worse. Assuming the poster was correct with the £700 billion. Public opinion is always divided but it is said when Labour took over the Tories finally had things in a pretty decent shape, gold in reserve etc. Now it's gone. My only hope is that all the money spent on schools and projects has a long term benefit. It's a big gamble. HOw true GB when he said "no more boom and bust". Just bust if he had been left. As a country we need to stop using the poor as our excuse for everything because the rich are getting richer and the people in the middle running the small businesses suffer the most. Only the tories come close to helping them I would say. I'm not a tory voter or member. The lack of help for small business is one reason those fortunate enough to have money left prefer to buy property, wine, ftse shares etc than put it into businesses where your staff are better treated than you or your competitors overseas turn out crap you wouldn't get away with where life and labour is cheap. Roger S
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree