Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play

Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

RT @leftfootfwd: Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

RT @leftfootfwd: Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play http://t.co/zgkzmrH

RT @leftfootfwd: Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

RT @leftfootfwd: Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt #ConDemNation

Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

RT @leftfootfwd: Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

Essentially, you are trying to tar Boris Johnson by linking him with councils which are implementing policies with which you disagree.

Not sure this is a wise tactic, given that Labour’s candidate is Ken Livingstone. After all, he’s hardly likely to run under the slogan ‘you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps’. It wouldn’t really be a vote winner…

RT @leftfootfwd: Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

You pay to go to the swimming pool or the cinema, you pay for your KFC family bucket (not very much though) – why not pay to use the playround. If some parents have to smoke a few less cigarettes each week to allow their kids some play time then it is probably a good thing.

RT @leftfootfwd: Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play – http://j.mp/k92GG3

Oh dear ! Unfortunately, certain arrogant, supercilious and patronising Daily Mail ‘brain-washing’ victims clearly fail to comprehend – and probably, couldn’t care less – that to some hard-working families the price of a KFC family bucket IS ‘very much’ , whether or not they would even consider purchasing one ! Typical Tory – knows the price of everything and the value of nothing !!

Of course to the Conservatives, play is a luxury, they really prefer children to be working a 40 hour week.

Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play: http://bit.ly/laANOt reports @ShamikDas

Well said, Jack!
Fortunately, I don’t live in London. I do have 4 children, so that would cost me either £10 or £4 for a trip to the park. This is hardly accessible to the majority of families. Where else are children supposed to let off steam and get exercise in built up city areas? What are the long term additional costs in terms of obesity, diabetes, etc? Typical short-sighted Tory policies!
We should also remember that a good number of Tories (including Boris) are ex-members of the Bullingdon club, so what is their understanding on the value of money?

Andrea,

I guess Tory MPs have the same understanding of money as Harriet Harman, Ed Balls, Ed Miliband etc. After all, they all have similar backgrounds.

I agree with you that charging people to go to parks is perverse; I am very much in favour of having more parks and planting more trees etc. It’s mad that people complain about obese, unruly youths while simultaneously restricting their access to areas where they could exercise. A shift in thinking would be good here.

But please let’s not turn this into a rich Tories/working class Labour matter. Both parties draw their MPs, particularly their leadership, from the same narrow pool.

Andrea Thomas shows the typical New Labour tendency of smearing the messenger with her pathetic tribal nonsense.

Considering the numbers of school playing fields sold off in the last 13 years it just shows typical Labour hypocrisy to run this completely pointless article.

If this is the most serious “offence” levelled at Boris Johnson – that like Harriet Harman he’s a toff (although not landed gentry like her) then the government and the mayor have nothing to worry about.

Whilst Ken Livingston associates with Islamic fascists who agree with female genital mutilation, execution for homosexuals and the legitimised marital beating and imprisonment of woman behind black cloaks subservient to men I’ll take Boris Johnson every time.

Basically Andrea Thomas believes a person should be condemned on the school they were sent to by their parents over which they had no choice. Nice.

Says everything about her unpleasant character and adds nothing (apart from nastiness) to this debate. So a few kids can’t play in a park? Boo hoo.

Thanks to people like me in their droves supporting Labour, it resulted in thousands of woman and children being killed in Iraq and all you can go on about is a park in London?

Get a grip please…

How do you know anything about my beliefs on schools? I made no mention to them.
How do you know anything about my character or which political party I support?
I made no mention of these either.
Perhaps you shouldn’t be so quick to draw ludicrous assumptions on people based on a paragraph that they write.
Also, for the record- my reference to the Bullingdon club. This club isn’t only about being exceptionaly rich; it is also about being destructive.
Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you try to assassinate them

Hmmm… how many playing fields were sold off by John Major’s government, eh, Anon E Troll? And which opposition party supported the Iraq War more strongly than the Labour Party? I’ll give you a starter for ten.

And yep, it does matter that poor kids don’t get to play. You may not care. Some of us do.

Now take your own advice and go and do something ‘positive’ for a change.

@Tom White

Please stop reminding Anon E Weasel David Cameron voted for the Iraq War.

You clearly don’t have kids or you would know that loads of Labour councils charge for children’s play facilities and have done for years. Take a look at Labour council’s leisure websites.

matthew fox – As a lifelong Labour voter I believed Tony (I’m a pretty straight kind of guy) Blair when he was lying to the commons.

In fact anyone who believed that Cyprus could have been hit by WMD in 45 minutes and hadn’t voted for war would have been considered delusional.

What no one realised at the time as Labour slavishly followed George Bush was that the “dossier” was a complete pack of lies.

To try to blame anyone who believed the Prime Minister at the time is totally unfair and (clearly unlike you matthew fox) I for one am ashamed for my lifelong support of such a warmongering, bloodthirsty, dishonest political party.

The fact you ignore and excuse the lies from Labour over the Iraq War speaks volumes about you personally.

Shame on you matthew fox….

Tom Shite – I mentioned Labour’s shocking record only to illustrate the hypocrisy in this article.

From the immaturity of your posts it is obvious you were schooled under a Labour government so I don’t intend to post anything more challenging…

Can anyone be positive about Labour at all here? The polls now put them neck and neck with the Tories. Miliband is a dead man walking (ask any member of the PLP) and they need all the help they can get…

Andrea

You seem indignant when people presume to know your views on schools or the political party you support – yet you applaud Jackson who presumes I read the Mail (I dont) and vote Tory (I dont). A little bit of lefty double standards perhaps.

Maybe I could offer a small piece of advice – if you spent less time trawling leftwing websites beseeching the rest of the country to spend ‘other peoples money’ on you and your brood you would have a little extra time to earn that little extra money to afford the one or two pounds needed to let your children play in the park.

I always like to see the use of the ‘Ad hominem,’ argument. Attack the person and not there argument: it shows that their argument is lost

Andrea,

Your reference to Bullingdon Club membership could be construed as ad hominem (though I’m sure you would argue otherwise).

Even if it were relevant, I mentioned earlier the hypocrisy of criticising wealthy Tories for not understanding the plight of the poor while not mentioning the affluence of Labour MPs.

Please address that point, otherwise accusations of double standards are bound to be directed at you.

Not exactly helping the olimpic legacy, is it.

Andrea Thomas – Seems to me that whilst you are happy to criticise one person for their schooling – again as I repeat a situation over which, as a child, they had no choice, you do not seem to like it when the same remarks are directed at yourself.

You display exactly what is unattractive about the current bunch of Labour activists – rank hypocrisy.

Speak to the countess toff Harriet Harman and Ed Balls for their educational background before you attack others for the same thing and it wont be considered to be so partisan – I have seen nothing so pathetic as Ed Balls dressed as a Nazi in his school days…

Mr.Sensible – In view of the record selloffs of school playing fields under the last useless Labour government are you seriously suggesting because some kid can’t play on the swings or the roundabout then our Olympic legacy will be affected?

On the subject of local council decisions why don’t you demand Nottingham council starts publishing it’s expenses over £500?

Selohesra, your earlier comment (number 2) indeed led me to presume that you were likely a Tory and also probably an avid reader of the Daily Mail – your clever (?!) prose providing the bedrock for my postulation – were I erroneous in making that deduction, then I apologise.
Did you genuinely not believe (or care) that your comments regarding ‘KFC family buckets’ and ‘cigarettes’ would be considered insulting to any number of hard-working families who disagree with the policy of charging children to use the play facilities in PUBLIC parks ? Given your subsequent comments (number 14) it would appear not, and therefore I was at least entirely correct – and justified – in my use of the adjectives: ARROGANT, SUPERCILIOUS, and PATRONISING !!

Incidentally, I feel sure that I cannot be the only contributor to the forums on this web-site who has noticed a sinister (in a completely laughable way !) development: it is apparent that a number of Tory ‘propagandists’ are regularly using the comments facility in an attempt to disseminate ‘misinformation’.
This is a minor inconveience as their asinine ramblings are usually reasonably easy to spot and frequently entail them regurgitating some neo-con mantra concerning the financial crisis and the previous government. However, whilst this factually incorrect bilge is easily identified by intelligent and economically literate people as the kind of moronic garbage often peddled by right-wing merchant bankers (surely the most aposite piece of ‘cockney rhyming slang’ ever invented !), unfortunately, it is often swallowed hook, line and sinker by Daily Mail readers, who apparently have great difficulty in discerning fact from fiction.
So, for the benefit of those who may be finding it a little difficult to identify these interlopers, here is another useful little pointer: the majority of these Tory self-aggrandising pseudo-intellectuals perceive themselves to be entirely imperceptible as a consequence of their ingenious ploy (which was gleaned directly from the pages of, ‘The Wizard Prang Book Of How To Be A Spy For Boys !’) – they use a ‘pseudonym’ !! Genius.

John Jackson – Two things.

Firstly I’ve been here since the first week; my position hasn’t changed once and I was a Labour voter my whole life until Gordon Brown was forced on the party after being promised a “full third term” of Mr Blair.

Secondly you say: “it is apparent that a number of Tory ‘propagandists’ are regularly using the comments facility in an attempt to disseminate ‘misinformation’”

What misinformation exactly?

Oh and the pseudonym is because Labour have a tendency to smear anyone who disagrees with them – just look at this very comments page and ask Peter Watt, Alistair Darling, Gillian Duffy or David Kelly’s widow…

Oh Mr Jackson what a clever man you are – all those long words are very impressive. What they don’t cover for however is your lack of a coherent response to my basic point that we pay for most pleasures in life.

Anon E Mouse – Four things.

Firstly, am I to assume that you actually wanted a “full third term” of the war-mongering neo-con Tory Mr B Liar ?!

Secondly, I believe that I make perfectly clear the kind of misinformation to which I refer and should you care to carefully re-read my post (number 21) that wil become apparent.

Thirdly, in your earlier post (number 7) in response to Andrea Thomas you state, “Basically Andrea Thomas believes a person should be condemned on the school they were sent to by their parents over which they had no choice.”
Indeed, Andrea Thomas makes NO such assertion; however, for your reference The Bullingdon Club is NOT a school – it is a socially exclusive dining (although some would venture it more accurate to say, drinking) club at Oxford University infamous for the boorish behaviour of it’s largely ‘chinless wonder’ membership! Furthermore, individuals apply to join – membership is not foisted upon them by parents.

Finally, also in your earlier post (number 7) you declare, “So a few kids can’t play in a park? Boo hoo.” (And you have the temerity to berate Andrea Thomas for her, “unpleasant character” ??!! Unbelievable.)

If you will forgive me for saying so Anon E Mouse, if that remark is indicative of your attitude then you are certainly no loss to the Labour Party – or indeed any social democratic movement – in fact, some would add, Good Riddance !!

Selohesra, Thank you for your kind words of appreciation !!

Unfortunately, your latest post (number 23) is not a little disingenuous. Were it true to say that your previous posts (numbers 2 & 14) consisted merely of the subjective opinion that, “we pay for most pleasures in life”, then I may – or, may not – have debated that premise with you. However, as you are well aware, I raised objection with the content of those posts because within them you chose also to make cynical assumptions about, and cast aspersion upon, any person that might decline to agree with the policy of charging children to play in PUBLIC parks.
And to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “What is a cynic ? A person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” (So, just like a Tory then !!)

John Jackson – Thanks for the reply.

Let’s keep the order though eh. I asked first.

So where is this misinformation then – what has been said that isn’t true and what do you think about the smearing by the Labour Party?

Anon E Mouse – You are most welcome!

Unlike your good-self, I am a relative newcomer to this site and it’s forums. However, in the admittedly short period of time that I have spent perusing articles and the associated comments I have been surprised by the number of right-wing ‘hijackers’.

Whilst I have, of course, encountered the usual, lazy, nonsensical Tory propaganda regarding the last governments culpability for the global financial meltdown (“Yawn”), I have also noted numerous – possibly very subtle – comments that completely ignore the subject matter of the relevant article but appear instead designed to undermine confidence in the Labour Party’s process of re-building.

One such example of this possible subterfuge could be: “Can anyone be positive about Labour at all here? The polls now put them neck and neck with the Tories. Miliband is a dead man walking (ask any member of the PLP) and they need all the help they can get…”

Frankly, I am unsure – what do you think ?

With regard to your question about “smearing by the Labour Party”, I would hope with the demise of ‘New’ Labour (aka: New Tory) Campbell and Mandelson that there would be considerably less.

Jacko – I feel we are getting to know each other better now so in the spirit of advancing the debate let me appologise unreservedly for the KFC slur – it was a fowl thing to say.

Now I’ve made the first move perhaps you could tell me the location of the ‘magic money tree’ – the left believe in it as does my wife but for me to truely believe I need to see evidence.

John Jackson – Regarding the re-building of the Labour Party that isn’t going to happen without getting rid of the hapless Milliband – I said the same on this blog about Gordon Brown and his thoroughly unacceptable behaviour towards his staff, yet despite everyone knowing people espousing my opinion are clearly right, no one in Labour had the balls to do anything.

And suffered their second worst defeat in history.

I mention being positive because negative campaigning has been shown not to work time and again yet Labour seem unable to learn from their mistakes and just keep repeating the same hypocritical nonsense time and again.

Labour will not get elected by this type of action – the polls show Miliband is a disaster and not changing their approach will result in further election losses. What is even worse than Labour’s hypocrisy and outright deceit in blogs like this fine one, is that the activists actually seem unable to even see what is wrong. Take this reply I gave earlier to BenM, a rude Labour activist:

“What worries me is that you seem quite happy to accept the very criticisms I mention without wanting an honest political party that represents the demographic it claims it supports.

Why don’t you want a positive Labour Party BenM because it’s pretty clear you don’t….”

What is very obvious is that your re-building hasn’t even started yet and without a leader the public can vote for it will be a long long time I fear…

Selohesra – Thank you for your response.

Ah yes, the mythical ‘Money Tree’ – personally, I imagine it standing somewhere in the leafy avenue that links ‘El Dorado’ to the lost city of ‘Atlantis’ !
But allow me to crave your indulgence for a moment and ask you to imagine that I have in fact located this arborescent, pecuniary miracle. Surely, this is the panacea for all of the World’s problems – or is it ?
Do I share my discovery with the rest of humanity or merely take that which I require to enhance the lives of those closest to me ?
If I am to share this gift (?) with the rest of humanity, should I set pre-conditions with regard to it’s use ?
In the event that I do indeed distribute the fruits of ‘The Tree’, how can I be sure that certain recipients will not merely use their share to purchase armaments so as to secure the source and plunder the remainder by force ?
And what if the distribution of this gift (?) should ultimately lead to the complete shutdown of society in the event an enormous global party were to ensue ?!
Maybe then I should just entrust it to a bank ? (“Hang on a minute, we tried that, remember ?”) Sorry, stupid idea !!
Patently, I have a CHOICE to make – and that is precisely where we stand in this very debate.

The unlimited supply of money in and of itself does not provide a single resolution to a single problem; however, obviously, the way in which the financial resources of a nation are allocated and utilised – and remember, we live in the fifth richest nation on earth – is absolutely fundamental to the well-being of that country, it’s society and it’s individual citizens.

Currently, this Conservative led Government has made a CHOICE to inflict massive cuts upon on our public services which are based entirely upon IDEOLOGICAL DOGMA.
Despite warnings from a litany of highly respected international economists that this policy of cuts is ‘too much, too soon’ and that it will harm our fragile economy – and recent economic figures clearly support that assertion – a deliberate, opportunistic CHOICE to shrink the size of the state has been made.

Let us then set-aside any other possible consequences of this ECONOMIC VANDALISM and examine the likely effects of this decision in just one area – the issue pertinent to this debate: children and the Tory policy of charging them to play in PUBLIC parks.

There is a raft of evidence which clearly suggests that money invested in early years play and education leads to a reduction in teenage crime, teenage pregnancy and teenage drug-abuse. In the USA, a long term study carried out over a ten year period evaluating the effect of additional funding for early years play and education concluded that for every dollar spent, ten dollars was subsequently saved as a consequence of the associated reduction in juvenile crime. (I am afraid that I am unable to recall which state carried out this research but I do recollect that it began with the letter ’M’ – “sorry“).

Be under no illusion, should we CHOOSE to allow and endorse this pernicious policy of social exclusion then in the not too distant future many of the forlorn little faces peering IN through the bars of the ‘off-limits’ play areas will be bigger forlorn faces peering OUT through the bars of a young offenders institute !

If we as a society make the CHOICE that it is acceptable to socially exclude children by virtue of deliberately imposing economic sanctions upon them then not only are we incredibly short-sighted, we are also little better than fascists.

Our future is in our hands, and also in OUR PUBLIC parks.

I apologise for the length of this post, but it concerns an issue far too important for a simple glib response.

John – I think you are in danger of letting your splenid hyperbole get in the way of the facts.

There is not such a huge difference in total between the government cuts and those that Darling claimed he would have to impose – the big difference is that Labour never properly explained where their cuts would fall and so can opportunistically declare that wherever the government proposes cuts they would not be making them there – perhaps the Official Opposition should be renamed the Official Opportunism.

The meme of these savage cuts is being fostered by the Tories as well as Labour both of whom need to demonstrate that they are very different to each other in order to justify their own existance. This deceit is compounded by the rampant bias of the BBC (and some other media) who have been bewailing the pain of the savage cuts from the day after the election – long before any impact could really resulted.

To me it is self evident that the cuts need to be deeper and faster (I may be mistaken but I read somewhere that government expenditure would be higher in 2011 than it was in 2010).

I would rather my taxes were going to fund schools and hospitals than servicing the massive debt we have built up – partly but not entirely as a result of Brown’s failure as Chancellor & PM

Selohesra – Thank you again for the response.

Unfortunately, as you fail to present any ‘facts’ within the content of your post (number 31), I shall instead attempt to address the points which you raise.
However, in advance of my so doing please allow me to inform you – purely for the purpose of reference – that although I am a Democratic Socialist; I am neither a fanatical nor tribal ‘My Party, right or wrong’ (to paraphrase: Stephen Decatur) advocate of ANY political party.

You are indeed correct to state that Alistair Darling, and the previous Labour administration, did not outline exactly where the cuts which he claimed he would have to impose were likely to fall; however, as that particular government was voted out of office in May 2010, we can only speculate as to which areas of public spending would most likely have been affected, and by how much.
However, ‘THE FACT’ (which you have conveniently chosen to ignore) is that the present Tory led administration has CHOSEN to cut much deeper and much
faster than even it originally informed us would be ‘necessary’ (??!!).

Another ‘FACT’ which you may – or, if you are a member of this Tory led cohort of economic incompetents, ‘may not’ – care to acknowledge is this: within the last fortnight the Tory led government has been warned by the ‘Office for Economic Co-operation and Development’ (hardly a hot-bed of left-wing reactionaries !) about the pace of the cuts.
Furthermore, just yesterday, 5th June 2011, Mr Osborne was told by a group of Britain’s leading economists that he needs to find a plan ‘B’, and in the words of one of that number: “you can’t really achieve your deficit reduction plans unless you really cause even more damage to the economy” – which explains precisely why, as you point out in your post, “government expenditure would be higher in 2011 than it was in 2010″ !
Mr Osborne’s critics also included the former chief economist at the Cabinet Office Jonathan Portes, who is now director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. In a letter to the Sunday Times, Mr Portes wrote: “You do not gain credibility by sticking to a strategy that is not working.”
Of course these concerns are just the latest in a series of warnings that have been voiced by numerous internationally renowned and respected economists not least among which is the 2008 Nobel prize winner for economics, Paul Krugman.

So, whilst it may indeed be “self evident” to your good-self that “the cuts need to be deeper and faster” – as indeed it is to the economic incompetents in this Tory led government who are clearly intent on IDEOLOGICALLY MOTIVATED economic vandalism – I am afraid that your opinion is completely at odds with INFORMED, RATIONAL ECONOMIC THINKING.

A ‘meme’ ? No, This Tory led government has attempted to inculcate a fallacious deception into the national psyche in order that it may, if not glean support, then at least minimise opposition for it’s entirely IDEOLOGICALLY driven policy of excessive cuts.

And with regard to the matter of ‘hyperbole’ and ‘facts’, I will let others decide who has presented facts in support of their argument and who is reliant alone merely upon subjective opinion. I feel confident that any informed, unbiased judge will easily identify the REAL NAME of the proponent of the most convincing, comprehensive and factually supported argument.

John
1) – Dont bank your arguenemt on OECD line – they actually came out to clarify after Balls’s poor spin attemt to confirm they generally supported the government line
2) – ‘a group of Britains leading economists’ could just as easily read ‘left leaning economists’ – personally I dont hold much store by any economists – I think they claim to understand rather more than they do
3) excessive cuts – goverment spending is still increasing as is the deficit

4) You seem very hung up by my posting as a pseudonym – my real name is really rather common – there are many who share my name in the world just like there are probably many John Jackson’s – I dont think posting under my real name would advance the arguements either way or help you to identify me. Perhaps we should all post under our NI numbers?
5) Looks like IMF have come out supporting Government deficit reduction policy

Try again

Selohesra

Yet again you are short on fact instead seemingly content to rely largely upon subjective opinion; however, I will once more attempt to address the points that you raise in your post (number 33).

1. I certainly would never ‘bank’ (is that intended to be a pun ?) my argument solely upon the edicts of the OECD. However, that having been said, allow me to refresh your memory as to exactly what was said by Pier Carlo Padoan, the chief economist of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:
“We see merit in slowing the pace of fiscal consolidation if there is not so good news on the growth front” and, ““We have seen that (growth numbers) are a bit weaker than expected. Should that continue to be the case, there is scope for slowing the pace.”
And that sir, is totally spin-free and ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’ shortly after the OECD had cut its UK growth forecast for the second time this year.

2. With regard to your assumption regarding ‘left-leaning economists’, I would point out that the group of economic experts to which you refer included two former Whitehall advisers and two signatories of last year’s high-profile letter backing the Tories’ cuts, who have now said that they have ‘profound concerns about the direction of Treasury policy’.

With reference to your statement that, (***)”I don’t hold much store by any economists and, “I think they claim to understand rather more than they do”, I shall file this away for future reference under the heading of ‘Sweeping Generalisation’ alongside your earlier pronouncements regarding KFC and cigarette smokers (post number 2).
- One shudders when imagining the absolute contempt and disdain you might possibly reserve for a nicotine addicted economist unfortunate enough to have a predilection for fried chicken !!

With respect, when it comes to making decisions regarding the competency of those who would present me with economic information and the validity of such, I trust that you will forgive me CHOOSING to grant greater credence to a Nobel Prize winning economist than to the Tory propaganda machine.

3. ‘EXCESSIVE – adjective: more than is necessary, normal or desirable’ (Oxford English Dictionary).

Patently, in light of the latest economic figures, evidence and opinion my use of the phrase ‘excessive cuts’ is entirely valid and justified. Furthermore, it is fallacious and/or disingenuous on your part to attempt to deny these ‘excessive cuts’ by alluding to ‘increasing government spending’ (genuine or otherwise) without mentioning that an increase in government spending – and therefore an increase in the deficit – is the inevitable consequence of the IDEOLOGICAL CHOICE that has been taken by the Tory led government to inflict these ‘excessive cuts’ upon our public services, our society and our Nation.

4. I am not in the least concerned by your use of a pseudonym, to each his own. The ‘REAL NAME’ reference in my previous post was intended as a light-hearted cryptic joke (ie: my posts feature a recognisable name ergo they will be easily ‘identified’ as providing the most convincing argument – geddit ?!)

5. To say that the “IMF have come out supporting Government deficit reduction policy”, is to completely gloss over the concerns raised by that organisation which has – YET AGAIN – revised down the growth forecast for 2011. (Damned by faint praise, indeed !!)

And anyway, surely you are not placing your faith in the pronouncements of the IMF ? After all, are you not the very man who said previously in the same post, (***)”I don’t hold much store by ANY economists and, “I think they claim to understand rather more than they do” !?!?

Rather reminds me of that old saying: ’Give them enough rope… ‘

In closing, I should like to return briefly to the subject of ‘pseudonyms’. In an earlier post (number 21) I made light-hearted reference to ‘Tory propagandists regularly using the comments facility in an attempt to disseminate misinformation’. I closed that post by, half-jokingly, proffering the following information:

‘So, for the benefit of those who may be finding it a little difficult to identify these interlopers, here is another useful little pointer: the majority of these Tory self-aggrandising pseudo-intellectuals perceive themselves to be entirely imperceptible as a consequence of their ingenious ploy (which was gleaned directly from the pages of, ‘The Wizard Prang Book Of How To Be A Spy For Boys !’) – they use a ‘pseudonym’ – Genius !!’

Rather reminds me of another couple of old sayings: ‘If the shoe fits… ‘ and, ‘There’s many a true word spoken in jest !!’

Well if you are going to resort to quoting your own posts to back up your argument then I give up – you can have the last word. Enjoy

[...] Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play – Shamik Das, June 1st [...]