egafd.com

So in addition to the u-turn on the pasty tax and static caravans earlier, we now have:

1. Coulson, Cameron's Director of Communications who everyone and their dog warned Cameron not to take on, has been charged with perjury at a time at which he was viewing top security documents without being fully security cleared.

2. Cameron took Cable off the BSkyB bid because he was obviously biased against Murdoch. So what does Cameron do? He gives the role to Hunt who has just written him a memo which is fervently and vehemently in favour of the bid. So why would Cameron take responsibility from Cable for being vehemently against and give it to Hunt who was vehemently in favour? The only inference you can make is that Cameron was determined to keep Murdoch sweet and the Sun supporting Diamond Dave and his cronies. And what does Hunt do on the day he is given the task? On hearing that Brussels had cleared issues re. the Murdoch bid, he texts James Murdoch "Great news re. Brussels, now only Ofcom to go". It stinks.

3. And today's u-turn is on charity relief.

I wonder how they decide what is in a budget?

Ozzie "Lads, the economy is tanking and I'm borrowing loads, any ideas?" Treasury bods "What about taxes on pasties, static caravans and hitting charities relief?"
Ozzie "Will it work?".
Treasury bods "No idea. Lets just see who complains".

Three months later.

Treasury bods "Lot of grief over pasties, static caravans and charity reliefs."
Ozzie "Okay, let's drop them"

WTF.

The difference is that Cable said he was at war with Murdoch.

But Hunt didn't pre-judge the issue. So it's possible to say that he can judge the issue impatially. !whistle!



How about a fat tax? You get weighed at your ATOS clinic. Everyone who is 10kg above their target weight pays ?100 a year.

Lets tax those annoying granny hells angels in mobility scooters.

"But Hunt didn't pre-judge the issue. So it's possible to say that he can judge the issue impatially. !whistle! !whistle!, indeed.

Hunt's texts to the likes of James Murdoch and the Murdoch lobbyist, Michel were more in the tone of having a chat with mates down the pub than running a "quasi-judicial process"

And it strikes me as inconceivable that Hunt didnt have a clue what his special advisor, Adam Smith was up to in giving Michel a heads-up on everything to do with the takeover review process including confidential info. They talked a number of times every day and been working closely together for 6 years.

But David, I thought you and the Labour Party were against taxes on pasties, caravans and charity relief?

Did you not want them lifted??

In which case - instead of sniping and petty point-scoring - surely you should be rejoicing, giving thanks and praising Osbourne for reversing them and bowing to the will of the people in that instance?


David rejoicing over Blackpool sands upon hearing of George Osbourne's tax U-turn:

[IMG]http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx19 ... Thanks.jpg[/IMG]

- Eric

Whether Labour was or was not in favour of the taxes mentioned is irrelevant to the point being made which is obviously, as follows

How incompetent is it for the Tory led government to time after time introduce measures without thinking them through and then having to backtrack after stating, for example in the case of the pasty tax, that they had no intention of giving way? It makes the government look incredibly weak and disorganised.

The term "omnishambles" sums the government up.

Whether or not the subject of the u-turn is welcome is a completely separate point.

"It makes the government look incredibly weak and disorganised."

Not really, the increase was introduced, Ginsters donate ?100,000 to party funds and then there is no increase. A bird in the hand and all that!

"Not really, the increase was introduced, Ginsters donate ?100,000 to party funds and then there is no increase. A bird in the hand and all that!"

I find your suggestion that the Tories took a bung from Ginsters in order to drop the pasty tax, absolutely scurrilous.

!wink!

David Johnson wrote:

> Whether or not the subject of the u-turn is welcome is a
> completely separate point.


OK so do you welcome this U-turn or not David?

- Eric

David Johnson wrote:

> How incompetent is it for the Tory led government to time after
> time introduce measures without thinking them through and then
> having to backtrack after stating, for example in the case of
> the pasty tax, that they had no intention of giving way? It
> makes the government look incredibly weak and disorganised.


What, you mean like how the last Labour Government were made to look weak, disorganised and incompetent when (just for example) they decided to axe the 10p tax rate but were then forced by their own MPs to backtrack on that?

- Eric