FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Rachel Reeves lies
Rachel Reeves lies
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Most people exaggerate on their CV, but deviousness is not a good trait in a Chancellor of the Exchequer."  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies!" Time will take care of her incompetence and sadly many people will suffer, some will die whether it be pensioners freezing or farmers taking their own life's I suspect that she will be the cause of many deaths and she won't give a dam | |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies! Time will take care of her incompetence and sadly many people will suffer, some will die whether it be pensioners freezing or farmers taking their own life's I suspect that she will be the cause of many deaths and she won't give a dam " Blimey, you make her sound like a Tory. | |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies! Time will take care of her incompetence and sadly many people will suffer, some will die whether it be pensioners freezing or farmers taking their own life's I suspect that she will be the cause of many deaths and she won't give a dam Blimey, you make her sound like a Tory." You think that because she's labour she's inherently good as opposed to tory who's inherently bad Your wilful naivety is stunning | |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies! Time will take care of her incompetence and sadly many people will suffer, some will die whether it be pensioners freezing or farmers taking their own life's I suspect that she will be the cause of many deaths and she won't give a dam Blimey, you make her sound like a Tory. You think that because she's labour she's inherently good as opposed to tory who's inherently bad Your wilful naivety is stunning " Not at all. Just used to 14 years of government openly showing contempt for British people. | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?." no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. | |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies! Time will take care of her incompetence and sadly many people will suffer, some will die whether it be pensioners freezing or farmers taking their own life's I suspect that she will be the cause of many deaths and she won't give a dam Blimey, you make her sound like a Tory. You think that because she's labour she's inherently good as opposed to tory who's inherently bad Your wilful naivety is stunning " yes that’s normally his stance on things like this | |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies! Time will take care of her incompetence and sadly many people will suffer, some will die whether it be pensioners freezing or farmers taking their own life's I suspect that she will be the cause of many deaths and she won't give a dam Blimey, you make her sound like a Tory." No… she Liebour 100%.. the same Liebour who broke my Grandfather’s heart after WW2. Refused to honour the War Bonds he purchased. His only Son was killed by the Germans in September 44 and that’s how the bastards repaid him | |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies! Time will take care of her incompetence and sadly many people will suffer, some will die whether it be pensioners freezing or farmers taking their own life's I suspect that she will be the cause of many deaths and she won't give a dam Blimey, you make her sound like a Tory. You think that because she's labour she's inherently good as opposed to tory who's inherently bad Your wilful naivety is stunning yes that’s normally his stance on things like this " Let's try to keep on track instead of personal jibes. | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked." Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. | |||
| |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times." Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. " You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. | |||
| |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. " People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. " Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. " Yep, spot on with the imaginary 22billion blackhole Apparently the 22billion blackhole is the cause of all this snow on its way too.  | |||
| |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. " So it ok be duplicitous? | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course." It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. | |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies! Time will take care of her incompetence and sadly many people will suffer, some will die whether it be pensioners freezing or farmers taking their own life's I suspect that she will be the cause of many deaths and she won't give a dam Blimey, you make her sound like a Tory." It does sound like the stereotypical Tory but I am assured she is Labour and one of the alleged grown ups. Unfortunately she is also responsible for the budget which is not turning out to be the pro growth budget promised. Apart from freezing pensioners I see today a multitude of retailers all saying that prices will rise and jobs will be cut all as a direct result of the budget. Perhaps she is actually a Tory working undercover | |||
| |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies! Time will take care of her incompetence and sadly many people will suffer, some will die whether it be pensioners freezing or farmers taking their own life's I suspect that she will be the cause of many deaths and she won't give a dam Blimey, you make her sound like a Tory. You think that because she's labour she's inherently good as opposed to tory who's inherently bad Your wilful naivety is stunning yes that’s normally his stance on things like this Let's try to keep on track instead of personal jibes. " ******************************** 'personal jibes'..? Nah... It's a simple observation. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies!" | |||
"Breaking news. She is a politician. Politicians lie. End of news flash." And "fully funded, fully costed" is a prime example of that | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. " So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x | |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies!" How she performs is more important to me though I understand the anger if she did falsify her CV. At present everything is going the opposite of what they promised and the other day on top of all the bad economic news it is reported that retail sales dropped with the rhetoric leading up to the budget a major factor. Also borrowing for the month was second highest ever with inflation busting pay rises given as a main factor, only beaten by the covid year. These are more reasons for SKS to consider her position, in my opinion | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x" Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. | |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies! How she performs is more important to me though I understand the anger if she did falsify her CV. At present everything is going the opposite of what they promised and the other day on top of all the bad economic news it is reported that retail sales dropped with the rhetoric leading up to the budget a major factor. Also borrowing for the month was second highest ever with inflation busting pay rises given as a main factor, only beaten by the covid year. These are more reasons for SKS to consider her position, in my opinion" Yes she should be sacked but remember Kier Starmer agreed with her every move. Note I said Kier Starmer and not "Sir" because he doesn't deserve the "Sir" As for Angela Rayner what qualifications does she have? Her CV from 16 upwards would be a interesting read.  | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. " It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x" Did Sunak steal money? Have you reported him to the police for this crime? | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x" It is classic whataboutery. However, I want to focus on the words stole and theft. What exactly do you mean by those words? They sound very much criminal. Can't ever remember Sunak being arrested. | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x It is classic whataboutery. However, I want to focus on the words stole and theft. What exactly do you mean by those words? They sound very much criminal. Can't ever remember Sunak being arrested. " He misappropriated money, allocated for one area and gave it to another without consultation, that's a financial crime. You are correct it's not theft and I shouldn't have said that, even though I think I only said it once, I should have said stealing. He did this through misappropriation, which is a financial crime. The difference between theft and misappropriation is ownership of the property. In theft its property already belonging to another. In misappropriation the property vests in the person who commits misappropriation by not fulfilling the act of transferring ownership to the person's it was intended for. As for the matter being criminal that's up to the authorities and not us to decide, still does not change the fact he moved money allocated to one group and gave it to another, misappropriation by any definition. As for the Whataboutery, it's not a case at all. It's just an example of one Chancellor not being held up for lack of honesty and transparency even though they stole from a certain group, whilst another is being hung out to dry because they fibbed on a CV. Mrs x | |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies!" Yes. | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x It is classic whataboutery. However, I want to focus on the words stole and theft. What exactly do you mean by those words? They sound very much criminal. Can't ever remember Sunak being arrested. He misappropriated money, allocated for one area and gave it to another without consultation, that's a financial crime. You are correct it's not theft and I shouldn't have said that, even though I think I only said it once, I should have said stealing. He did this through misappropriation, which is a financial crime. The difference between theft and misappropriation is ownership of the property. In theft its property already belonging to another. In misappropriation the property vests in the person who commits misappropriation by not fulfilling the act of transferring ownership to the person's it was intended for. As for the matter being criminal that's up to the authorities and not us to decide, still does not change the fact he moved money allocated to one group and gave it to another, misappropriation by any definition. As for the Whataboutery, it's not a case at all. It's just an example of one Chancellor not being held up for lack of honesty and transparency even though they stole from a certain group, whilst another is being hung out to dry because they fibbed on a CV. Mrs x" You went through all that explanation only to still say that he stole money.... Not very balanced. Especially when you downplay 'lied' to 'fibbed' and then ask for Sunak to be held up and won't do the same for Reeves. As far as the whataboutery, it's just that, however you try to spin it. | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x It is classic whataboutery. However, I want to focus on the words stole and theft. What exactly do you mean by those words? They sound very much criminal. Can't ever remember Sunak being arrested. He misappropriated money, allocated for one area and gave it to another without consultation, that's a financial crime. You are correct it's not theft and I shouldn't have said that, even though I think I only said it once, I should have said stealing. He did this through misappropriation, which is a financial crime. The difference between theft and misappropriation is ownership of the property. In theft its property already belonging to another. In misappropriation the property vests in the person who commits misappropriation by not fulfilling the act of transferring ownership to the person's it was intended for. As for the matter being criminal that's up to the authorities and not us to decide, still does not change the fact he moved money allocated to one group and gave it to another, misappropriation by any definition. As for the Whataboutery, it's not a case at all. It's just an example of one Chancellor not being held up for lack of honesty and transparency even though they stole from a certain group, whilst another is being hung out to dry because they fibbed on a CV. Mrs x You went through all that explanation only to still say that he stole money.... Not very balanced. Especially when you downplay 'lied' to 'fibbed' and then ask for Sunak to be held up and won't do the same for Reeves. As far as the whataboutery, it's just that, however you try to spin it. " I must be missing something here. You said that"...I want to focus on the words stole and theft. What exactly do you mean by those words? They sound very much criminal." So I explained what I meant by those words I used, I explained the criminality in regards to the action of the person in question. You did not rebut what I said about why I used these words, you had no explanation as to why those words, the ones you wanted "to focus on", were incorrect, or challenged the legality of the actions, you simply complained saying that "[I'd] went through all that explanation only to still say that he stole money....", well yes I did because you seemed to want to know about these words and wanted to "focus" on them. So I did and that has bemused you, I cannot see why. You then say its ,"[Not] very balanced". Let me address that. You are right but I believe you have stumbled upon this. That was my while point to the poster when I first mentioned this. There is no balance here. As you brought up balance let's use a description involving scales. On one side the misappropriation of millions of pounds by one person. On the other side of the scale the false enhancement of qualifications and experience. So which is more serious? One which can only have been done by a small number of people compared to another that will have been done by millions of people. Both are acts of dishonesty but I would suggest one outweighs the other significantly. Only one has any criminality attached to it. And that's what I was getting at in my original post that you responded to. I apologise that you couldn't grasp this hypocrisy in not condemning someone for millions of pounds worth of pecuniary fraud, whilst condemning the fibs used on a CV. Hopefully this address the balance issue for you. As for my downplaying of the dishonesty on the CV, I'm going to address that to. In this area it's about levels. Has there been dishonesty, well obviously there has. Should she have done it, no she shouldn't. Does her position as an MP mean she should be held to a higher standard, yes I think it does. But what did she do? Is this a rare occurrence, no definitely not. Millions 'enhance' their CV. It's become almost acceptable practice now. So if millions do this daily that reduces the level of seriousness down for me.So that's why I say she has fibbed, it's not right but it's almost normalised. I could use the phrase telling "Porkie Pies" if you prefer. Let me know, could give us something else to "focus" on. It's the occupational equivalent of complementing your partner when they ask for your opinion on how the look before they go on a night out. You are never going to tell the truth, you know you're not going to say "...of course you look wrinklies now, we've been together 20 years, you'd give Bagpuss a run for his money nowadays". Nobody would do that, even if it's the truth. So it's a thing about levels. So has she fibbed?, yes she has. Do others do it?, yes millions. Is it worse because she's an MP?, yes it is. Is it as bad as withholding allocation of millions from deprived urban communities to redistribute to wealthy rural area?, no it's fucking not, not even in the same league. Hope this sums up what I was saying. If there are any words you are unhappy with that I've used I'm sure you'll let me know but not so sure if my further explanation of any offensive words will prove illuminating for you and as such it may prove to be a futile exercise on my behalf. Mrs x | |||
"Should she be sacked for her CV lies! How she performs is more important to me though I understand the anger if she did falsify her CV. At present everything is going the opposite of what they promised and the other day on top of all the bad economic news it is reported that retail sales dropped with the rhetoric leading up to the budget a major factor. Also borrowing for the month was second highest ever with inflation busting pay rises given as a main factor, only beaten by the covid year. These are more reasons for SKS to consider her position, in my opinion Yes she should be sacked but remember Kier Starmer agreed with her every move. Note I said Kier Starmer and not "Sir" because he doesn't deserve the "Sir" As for Angela Rayner what qualifications does she have? Her CV from 16 upwards would be a interesting read. " | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x It is classic whataboutery. However, I want to focus on the words stole and theft. What exactly do you mean by those words? They sound very much criminal. Can't ever remember Sunak being arrested. He misappropriated money, allocated for one area and gave it to another without consultation, that's a financial crime. You are correct it's not theft and I shouldn't have said that, even though I think I only said it once, I should have said stealing. He did this through misappropriation, which is a financial crime. The difference between theft and misappropriation is ownership of the property. In theft its property already belonging to another. In misappropriation the property vests in the person who commits misappropriation by not fulfilling the act of transferring ownership to the person's it was intended for. As for the matter being criminal that's up to the authorities and not us to decide, still does not change the fact he moved money allocated to one group and gave it to another, misappropriation by any definition. As for the Whataboutery, it's not a case at all. It's just an example of one Chancellor not being held up for lack of honesty and transparency even though they stole from a certain group, whilst another is being hung out to dry because they fibbed on a CV. Mrs x You went through all that explanation only to still say that he stole money.... Not very balanced. Especially when you downplay 'lied' to 'fibbed' and then ask for Sunak to be held up and won't do the same for Reeves. As far as the whataboutery, it's just that, however you try to spin it. I must be missing something here. You said that"...I want to focus on the words stole and theft. What exactly do you mean by those words? They sound very much criminal." So I explained what I meant by those words I used, I explained the criminality in regards to the action of the person in question. You did not rebut what I said about why I used these words, you had no explanation as to why those words, the ones you wanted "to focus on", were incorrect, or challenged the legality of the actions, you simply complained saying that "[I'd] went through all that explanation only to still say that he stole money....", well yes I did because you seemed to want to know about these words and wanted to "focus" on them. So I did and that has bemused you, I cannot see why. You then say its ,"[Not] very balanced". Let me address that. You are right but I believe you have stumbled upon this. That was my while point to the poster when I first mentioned this. There is no balance here. As you brought up balance let's use a description involving scales. On one side the misappropriation of millions of pounds by one person. On the other side of the scale the false enhancement of qualifications and experience. So which is more serious? One which can only have been done by a small number of people compared to another that will have been done by millions of people. Both are acts of dishonesty but I would suggest one outweighs the other significantly. Only one has any criminality attached to it. And that's what I was getting at in my original post that you responded to. I apologise that you couldn't grasp this hypocrisy in not condemning someone for millions of pounds worth of pecuniary fraud, whilst condemning the fibs used on a CV. Hopefully this address the balance issue for you. As for my downplaying of the dishonesty on the CV, I'm going to address that to. In this area it's about levels. Has there been dishonesty, well obviously there has. Should she have done it, no she shouldn't. Does her position as an MP mean she should be held to a higher standard, yes I think it does. But what did she do? Is this a rare occurrence, no definitely not. Millions 'enhance' their CV. It's become almost acceptable practice now. So if millions do this daily that reduces the level of seriousness down for me.So that's why I say she has fibbed, it's not right but it's almost normalised. I could use the phrase telling "Porkie Pies" if you prefer. Let me know, could give us something else to "focus" on. It's the occupational equivalent of complementing your partner when they ask for your opinion on how the look before they go on a night out. You are never going to tell the truth, you know you're not going to say "...of course you look wrinklies now, we've been together 20 years, you'd give Bagpuss a run for his money nowadays". Nobody would do that, even if it's the truth. So it's a thing about levels. So has she fibbed?, yes she has. Do others do it?, yes millions. Is it worse because she's an MP?, yes it is. Is it as bad as withholding allocation of millions from deprived urban communities to redistribute to wealthy rural area?, no it's fucking not, not even in the same league. Hope this sums up what I was saying. If there are any words you are unhappy with that I've used I'm sure you'll let me know but not so sure if my further explanation of any offensive words will prove illuminating for you and as such it may prove to be a futile exercise on my behalf. Mrs x " You definitely missed something. Amongst your ranting, you still say Sunak 'stole' money from deprived areas. Can you tell me how you come to that conclusion? A quote from Sunak rather than the 'outrage' from the press would be great. | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x It is classic whataboutery. However, I want to focus on the words stole and theft. What exactly do you mean by those words? They sound very much criminal. Can't ever remember Sunak being arrested. He misappropriated money, allocated for one area and gave it to another without consultation, that's a financial crime. You are correct it's not theft and I shouldn't have said that, even though I think I only said it once, I should have said stealing. He did this through misappropriation, which is a financial crime. The difference between theft and misappropriation is ownership of the property. In theft its property already belonging to another. In misappropriation the property vests in the person who commits misappropriation by not fulfilling the act of transferring ownership to the person's it was intended for. As for the matter being criminal that's up to the authorities and not us to decide, still does not change the fact he moved money allocated to one group and gave it to another, misappropriation by any definition. As for the Whataboutery, it's not a case at all. It's just an example of one Chancellor not being held up for lack of honesty and transparency even though they stole from a certain group, whilst another is being hung out to dry because they fibbed on a CV. Mrs x You went through all that explanation only to still say that he stole money.... Not very balanced. Especially when you downplay 'lied' to 'fibbed' and then ask for Sunak to be held up and won't do the same for Reeves. As far as the whataboutery, it's just that, however you try to spin it. I must be missing something here. You said that"...I want to focus on the words stole and theft. What exactly do you mean by those words? They sound very much criminal." So I explained what I meant by those words I used, I explained the criminality in regards to the action of the person in question. You did not rebut what I said about why I used these words, you had no explanation as to why those words, the ones you wanted "to focus on", were incorrect, or challenged the legality of the actions, you simply complained saying that "[I'd] went through all that explanation only to still say that he stole money....", well yes I did because you seemed to want to know about these words and wanted to "focus" on them. So I did and that has bemused you, I cannot see why. You then say its ,"[Not] very balanced". Let me address that. You are right but I believe you have stumbled upon this. That was my while point to the poster when I first mentioned this. There is no balance here. As you brought up balance let's use a description involving scales. On one side the misappropriation of millions of pounds by one person. On the other side of the scale the false enhancement of qualifications and experience. So which is more serious? One which can only have been done by a small number of people compared to another that will have been done by millions of people. Both are acts of dishonesty but I would suggest one outweighs the other significantly. Only one has any criminality attached to it. And that's what I was getting at in my original post that you responded to. I apologise that you couldn't grasp this hypocrisy in not condemning someone for millions of pounds worth of pecuniary fraud, whilst condemning the fibs used on a CV. Hopefully this address the balance issue for you. As for my downplaying of the dishonesty on the CV, I'm going to address that to. In this area it's about levels. Has there been dishonesty, well obviously there has. Should she have done it, no she shouldn't. Does her position as an MP mean she should be held to a higher standard, yes I think it does. But what did she do? Is this a rare occurrence, no definitely not. Millions 'enhance' their CV. It's become almost acceptable practice now. So if millions do this daily that reduces the level of seriousness down for me.So that's why I say she has fibbed, it's not right but it's almost normalised. I could use the phrase telling "Porkie Pies" if you prefer. Let me know, could give us something else to "focus" on. It's the occupational equivalent of complementing your partner when they ask for your opinion on how the look before they go on a night out. You are never going to tell the truth, you know you're not going to say "...of course you look wrinklies now, we've been together 20 years, you'd give Bagpuss a run for his money nowadays". Nobody would do that, even if it's the truth. So it's a thing about levels. So has she fibbed?, yes she has. Do others do it?, yes millions. Is it worse because she's an MP?, yes it is. Is it as bad as withholding allocation of millions from deprived urban communities to redistribute to wealthy rural area?, no it's fucking not, not even in the same league. Hope this sums up what I was saying. If there are any words you are unhappy with that I've used I'm sure you'll let me know but not so sure if my further explanation of any offensive words will prove illuminating for you and as such it may prove to be a futile exercise on my behalf. Mrs x You definitely missed something. Amongst your ranting, you still say Sunak 'stole' money from deprived areas. Can you tell me how you come to that conclusion? A quote from Sunak rather than the 'outrage' from the press would be great. " He misappropriation funds, he spoke about it at a garden party he was very glib about it, look it up, Mrs x | |||
| |||
| |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x" He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. " It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. " The funds were part of the levelling up agenda that Boris was voted in on. You know when he got all those red wall seats where the funds were promised. | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. " Oh, I am vocal about anyone I believe has done great wrong, and now I know you EXPECT me to be of course I shall have to do so, wouldn't want to disappoint. Mrs x | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x" It is whatabutery and reading the rest of the thread you have also managed to change the subject to Sunak.  | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. The funds were part of the levelling up agenda that Boris was voted in on. You know when he got all those red wall seats where the funds were promised." It's a joke how people cannot see the hypocrisy of stealing millions from the under privileged compared to someone lying on her CV. It's not comparable, if you are going to flag one off then balance it with the misdemeanours of their predecessors, see who you'd rather have then. Oh yeah she embellished, enhance told Porkie Pies on her CV, that's wrong. Boris lied about everything, to the public, the police, his own party, his employers , his spouse, his mistresses and somehow he's a true blue messiah. Joke, total hypocrites, Mrs x | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x It is whatabutery and reading the rest of the thread you have also managed to change the subject to Sunak. "I haven't though have I. I was pointing out how you value honesty and integrity from you Chancellor but I merely pointed out an example of were your views on the same issue, honesty and integrity were strangely different, in fact the silence was deafening. You cannot make a point without actually pointing at something, in this case the actions of a previous Chancellor. But it seems you cannot do this because it upsets your narrative of bashing the incumbent because she's not of a hue you prefer. Millions stol@n v fibs, which is worse? I cannot put it simpler, removed party lines, individuals but I know I won't get an honest reply. Mrs x | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x " Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising  | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x It is whatabutery and reading the rest of the thread you have also managed to change the subject to Sunak. I haven't though have I.
I was pointing out how you value honesty and integrity from you Chancellor but I merely pointed out an example of were your views on the same issue, honesty and integrity were strangely different, in fact the silence was deafening.
You cannot make a point without actually pointing at something, in this case the actions of a previous Chancellor. But it seems you cannot do this because it upsets your narrative of bashing the incumbent because she's not of a hue you prefer.
Millions stol@n v fibs, which is worse? I cannot put it simpler, removed party lines, individuals but I know I won't get an honest reply.
Mrs x"Your point is whataboutery, you have written a lot to try and shoehorn it in. If you would like to discuss Sunak or double standards, you could start a new thread. Getting back to the OP: What are you thoughts on Reeves CV and her consistent reinforcement of her lies during interviews post and during the run up to the election, or her performance as the chancellor to date? | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising "So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election. Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are. Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff. There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived... This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic. Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it. | |||
"Her CV has nothing to do with her Role. Was Hunt an economist and a doctor?. no, Hunt wasn’t and nor did he claim to be. Reeves had put ‘Economist’ on her LinkedIn profile, then changed it to ‘Retail Banking’…… she has clearly tried to embellish her previous experience. If I lied on my CV/Linkedin profile, I would be sacked. Lol you don't think Starmer knew her background. That he has been conned into giving her the role. It really is comedy gold in here at times. Well that even worse isn’t it. If you or I lied on a CV and an employer found out it a sackable offence. Read any job application, always a section stating none true statements is grounds for dismissal. You think she applied for a job, handed over her CV and lied during an interview. lol the desperation is strong on this one. People have been commenting on ministerial appointments having no experience in their given roles for decades. People are calling out the mistruths and deception to convince the public she is far more experienced than she is. Not a good look for Labour, again, especially with the imaginary 22billion blackhole, removing WFA, taxing education, piling on NI payments to business that ultimately impacts working people with lower pay rise expectations and higher product costs and Labour spending so much she needs to go back for more! I Maybe a little more scrutiny around her experience would have been wise and what the country would expect given the responsibility she has. Nice word salad. Does a chancellor of the exchequer need to have a background in economics. If so why hasn’t that criteria been applied before. If not then why has it become a problem for this particular chancellor. Apart from the fact it’s Liebour of course. It appears you’re misunderstanding what ‘word salad’ means. You have also conflated the issue of job qualifications with the question of integrity. This discussion isn’t about whether a chancellor must have specific credentials, more about concerns over her honesty and transparency, especially when her role affords her great authority that impacts every single person in the country. So how come you didn't use this criteria when examining Sunak and his deliberate misappropriation of levelling up funds. Taking them deprived areas and giving them to affluent areas. Bragging about it at a garden party, on video, whilst in Tunbridge Wells. That honest and transparent enough for you was it? Mrs x Bringing up Sunak’s actions is a classic case of whataboutery. This discussion is about Rachel Reeves and the concerns around her honesty and transparency in presenting her experience to the public. It's not whataboutery, it's a classic example of you saying one thing but that obly applies to those you are using it to defame. Surely these qualities apply to ALL Xhancellors but apparently not. And let's remember he stole money from those it was allocated for and gave it to those he thought were more deserving. She on the other hand has, at the most, exaggerated her experience on her CV. So you can get away with theft as a Chancellor but not fibs? Sometimes you really need to think about what you say before you say it, very silly. Mrs x It is whatabutery and reading the rest of the thread you have also managed to change the subject to Sunak. I haven't though have I.
I was pointing out how you value honesty and integrity from you Chancellor but I merely pointed out an example of were your views on the same issue, honesty and integrity were strangely different, in fact the silence was deafening.
You cannot make a point without actually pointing at something, in this case the actions of a previous Chancellor. But it seems you cannot do this because it upsets your narrative of bashing the incumbent because she's not of a hue you prefer.
Millions stol@n v fibs, which is worse? I cannot put it simpler, removed party lines, individuals but I know I won't get an honest reply.
Mrs x
Your point is whataboutery, you have written a lot to try and shoehorn it in. If you would like to discuss Sunak or double standards, you could start a new thread.
Getting back to the OP:
What are you thoughts on Reeves CV and her consistent reinforcement of her lies during interviews post and during the run up to the election, or her performance as the chancellor to date? "They are not in the same league as the previous incumbent of the post. The guy who stole millions. Knew you wouldn't answer that simplest of questions, Mrs x | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
"I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it. Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand. Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments? | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?"What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it. The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there. But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level. Mrs x | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x"The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing. The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well.... He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. "He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation. He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally. Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing. Mrs x | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x"It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to. I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. "Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x"I've watched the video and read the press afterwards. No one knows (apart from you) which formulae were changed. | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x
I've watched the video and read the press afterwards.
No one knows (apart from you) which formulae were changed. "Well you haven't read enough then, have you. I'm going to post some actual copy from a report by the BBC which shows that that the scheme was altered in the second round. It states whether this was fair or not, it wasn't by the way. It also touches on the infamous 'formula' and how it was changed. It then goes to show the impact of the change and whether this was fair. You seem to be very obtuse today, waning to know the exact details of this formula. You cannot deny this was done, Sunak was recorded saying he did it. Then it goes a little weird. Instead of asking why it was done, you just want the details of the formula, nothing is going to be okay for you until you get this. It's like defending the actions of a man, who admits stabbing someone but did so after changing the knife. It's only important that you know what knife he was going to use and what he swapped it with. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the guy admitted what he done, how he done it but you have to have the knife and the details of the knife he was going to use before you can move on. Not very logical approach is it? So Sunak said he misappropriation they money. He had to change a 'formula' to be able to do it. So he did and then redistributed the funds. He even said it was purely down to him. So he took money allocated by the Government for a group of people, had to change a 'formula', rules, recipe, whatever, which he did, to be able to do so. He then gave this allocated money to another group. This is classic fraud. It's never been his money to do with as he sees fit. He had to change the system to do this and then he did this without Government backing. In fact fellow Tories criticised him at the time for doing this and claimed he only did this to increase his chances of election to PM when going up against Truss. He stole money from the deprived to give to the rich, rich Tory voters. From a BBC website I cannot quote because I recieved a ban last time... 'How fair is the process? Areas were invited to bid for investment in transport, cultural, town centre and regeneration projects. Local MPs were allowed to give their formal support to two bids before the proposals were judged by officials from the Treasury, Levelling Up Department and Department for Transport. Assessing how fair this is, is not straightforward. Some projects - such as transport - may spread across several constituencies, represented by MPs from different parties. For the projects that can be allocated to a single party, we can say that more money was allocated to Conservative constituencies than to Labour ones. But there are significantly more Conservative ones. BBC analysis of the second round of funding found: 52% of successful bids that can be allocated to a party were in Conservative constituencies (the Conservatives won 56% of seats in the Commons in 2019) 24% of them were in Labour areas (Labour won 31% of the seats in 2019) Projects in Tory constituencies were awarded a total of £1.21bn, compared with £471m in Labour ones. There was one successful bid in a Lib Dem constituency, seven for the SNP, five for the DUP, three for Sinn Fein, and one each for the Alliance Party and Plaid Cymru. Areas have also been competing for money under the government's Towns Fund. In that contest, of the 56 constituencies that won, 47 had Conservative MPs. A zoo, a park and a pool - who got first round levelling up cash? Towns Fund: How were the winners chosen? What about deprived areas? On the second round of funding, Rishi Sunak said: "two thirds of all the levelling up funding is going to the most deprived parts of our country". BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round. That analysis excludes a small number of awards that were given to areas covering multiple local authorities. We asked the Levelling Up department about Mr Sunak's claim. It said it was not based on the government's index of multiple deprivation but was instead based on measures involving productivity, employment, vacancy rates, lack of skills and transport links". So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula". As for the criticism from his own party, after seeing the video,...'Conservative MP and Truss ally Jake Berry tweeted: "In public Rishi Sunak claims he wants to level up the North, but here, he boasts about trying to funnel vital investment away from deprived areas? He says one thing and does another." A source in the rival Liz Truss campaign said: "Levelling up isn't about pitting one area of the country against another, or laying dividing lines between urban v rural, towns v cities. "It is about unleashing growth and making sure every individual has the chance to thrive. Liz has a plan to create an aspiration nation based on equality of opportunity, and will deliver it in a conservative way." So even fellow Tories know what he did was wrong. Jonathon Blake, a BBC Political Commentator summarised Sunaks position after watching the video, he wrote... 'Rishi Sunak's comments appear to fly in the face of recent Conservative rhetoric about levelling up and securing Labour's former "red wall". Why would the former chancellor be boasting about diverting funding away from deprived urban areas? In short, because he was in Royal Tunbridge Wells at the time, one of his party's traditional heartlands, speaking to grassroots members. And while the Conservative party doesn't publish data on its membership, research shows most of them live in the South East of England, and are generally older and relatively wealthy. Mr Sunak's team insist he was talking about changes to ensure pockets of deprivation in towns and rural areas got the funding they deserved. His opponents will seize on his comments as not just clumsy, but another example of him appearing to be out of touch'. So even after all of this I've posted here, even after the magic 'formula' that you seem to suggest I was the only one who knew of its exsistence, has been evidence in the section under "What about Deprived Areas? ". Even what this 'formula' was replaced with is also explained. Even though what happened clearly shows Sunak took money from the poor, gave to his rich supporters in the South East in a blatant attempt to garner their favour, you still won't accept what I'm saying. Sunak has no honesty or transparency, what he has done has taken millions from those who need it and given it to those that don't. He stole that money and tried to buy political influence, even other Tories accuse him of this but you will not accept it. You seem to be following dogma and not logic, its all a bit silly Mrs x | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x
I've watched the video and read the press afterwards.
No one knows (apart from you) which formulae were changed. Well you haven't read enough then, have you. I'm going to post some actual copy from a report by the BBC which shows that that the scheme was altered in the second round. It states whether this was fair or not, it wasn't by the way.
It also touches on the infamous 'formula' and how it was changed. It then goes to show the impact of the change and whether this was fair.
You seem to be very obtuse today, waning to know the exact details of this formula. You cannot deny this was done, Sunak was recorded saying he did it.
Then it goes a little weird. Instead of asking why it was done, you just want the details of the formula, nothing is going to be okay for you until you get this.
It's like defending the actions of a man, who admits stabbing someone but did so after changing the knife. It's only important that you know what knife he was going to use and what he swapped it with. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the guy admitted what he done, how he done it but you have to have the knife and the details of the knife he was going to use before you can move on.
Not very logical approach is it?
So Sunak said he misappropriation they money. He had to change a 'formula' to be able to do it. So he did and then redistributed the funds. He even said it was purely down to him. So he took money allocated by the Government for a group of people, had to change a 'formula', rules, recipe, whatever, which he did, to be able to do so. He then gave this allocated money to another group.
This is classic fraud. It's never been his money to do with as he sees fit. He had to change the system to do this and then he did this without Government backing.
In fact fellow Tories criticised him at the time for doing this and claimed he only did this to increase his chances of election to PM when going up against Truss.
He stole money from the deprived to give to the rich, rich Tory voters.
From a BBC website I cannot quote because I recieved a ban last time...
'How fair is the process?
Areas were invited to bid for investment in transport, cultural, town centre and regeneration projects.
Local MPs were allowed to give their formal support to two bids before the proposals were judged by officials from the Treasury, Levelling Up Department and Department for Transport.
Assessing how fair this is, is not straightforward. Some projects - such as transport - may spread across several constituencies, represented by MPs from different parties.
For the projects that can be allocated to a single party, we can say that more money was allocated to Conservative constituencies than to Labour ones. But there are significantly more Conservative ones.
BBC analysis of the second round of funding found:
52% of successful bids that can be allocated to a party were in Conservative constituencies (the Conservatives won 56% of seats in the Commons in 2019)
24% of them were in Labour areas (Labour won 31% of the seats in 2019)
Projects in Tory constituencies were awarded a total of £1.21bn, compared with £471m in Labour ones.
There was one successful bid in a Lib Dem constituency, seven for the SNP, five for the DUP, three for Sinn Fein, and one each for the Alliance Party and Plaid Cymru.
Areas have also been competing for money under the government's Towns Fund. In that contest, of the 56 constituencies that won, 47 had Conservative MPs.
A zoo, a park and a pool - who got first round levelling up cash?
Towns Fund: How were the winners chosen?
What about deprived areas?
On the second round of funding, Rishi Sunak said: "two thirds of all the levelling up funding is going to the most deprived parts of our country".
BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
That analysis excludes a small number of awards that were given to areas covering multiple local authorities.
We asked the Levelling Up department about Mr Sunak's claim. It said it was not based on the government's index of multiple deprivation but was instead based on measures involving productivity, employment, vacancy rates, lack of skills and transport links".
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".
As for the criticism from his own party, after seeing the video,...'Conservative MP and Truss ally Jake Berry tweeted: "In public Rishi Sunak claims he wants to level up the North, but here, he boasts about trying to funnel vital investment away from deprived areas? He says one thing and does another."
A source in the rival Liz Truss campaign said: "Levelling up isn't about pitting one area of the country against another, or laying dividing lines between urban v rural, towns v cities.
"It is about unleashing growth and making sure every individual has the chance to thrive. Liz has a plan to create an aspiration nation based on equality of opportunity, and will deliver it in a conservative way."
So even fellow Tories know what he did was wrong.
Jonathon Blake, a BBC Political Commentator summarised Sunaks position after watching the video, he wrote...
'Rishi Sunak's comments appear to fly in the face of recent Conservative rhetoric about levelling up and securing Labour's former "red wall".
Why would the former chancellor be boasting about diverting funding away from deprived urban areas?
In short, because he was in Royal Tunbridge Wells at the time, one of his party's traditional heartlands, speaking to grassroots members.
And while the Conservative party doesn't publish data on its membership, research shows most of them live in the South East of England, and are generally older and relatively wealthy.
Mr Sunak's team insist he was talking about changes to ensure pockets of deprivation in towns and rural areas got the funding they deserved.
His opponents will seize on his comments as not just clumsy, but another example of him appearing to be out of touch'.
So even after all of this I've posted here, even after the magic 'formula' that you seem to suggest I was the only one who knew of its exsistence, has been evidence in the section under "What about Deprived Areas? ". Even what this 'formula' was replaced with is also explained. Even though what happened clearly shows Sunak took money from the poor, gave to his rich supporters in the South East in a blatant attempt to garner their favour, you still won't accept what I'm saying.
Sunak has no honesty or transparency, what he has done has taken millions from those who need it and given it to those that don't.
He stole that money and tried to buy political influence, even other Tories accuse him of this but you will not accept it. You seem to be following dogma and not logic, its all a bit silly Mrs x"It seems that you're saying none of the Tory areas awarded were deprived. Did you read any of the data in that article? Again, you accuse me of being obtuse whilst displaying the same sort of behaviour. Stop projecting. | |||
| |||
"Derailed, so in an attempt to bring it back….. How does the reworking of the WFA formula, the private school vat formula, farming IHT formula, borrowing against student loan debt formula, public sector pay rise formula, stack up when the person doing the reworking is a proven lier who embellishes the facts to promote her ability to change the formula? The allegations against Reeves have undermined public trust in the government’s policy decisions, I was not expecting it to go so wrong so quickly." Come and live up here and you will never be surprised again.It’s exactly the same.The government lacks any economic sense and thinks anyone rich who isn’t from the public sector holds wealth in Scrooge mcduck vaults | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x
I've watched the video and read the press afterwards.
No one knows (apart from you) which formulae were changed. Well you haven't read enough then, have you. I'm going to post some actual copy from a report by the BBC which shows that that the scheme was altered in the second round. It states whether this was fair or not, it wasn't by the way.
It also touches on the infamous 'formula' and how it was changed. It then goes to show the impact of the change and whether this was fair.
You seem to be very obtuse today, waning to know the exact details of this formula. You cannot deny this was done, Sunak was recorded saying he did it.
Then it goes a little weird. Instead of asking why it was done, you just want the details of the formula, nothing is going to be okay for you until you get this.
It's like defending the actions of a man, who admits stabbing someone but did so after changing the knife. It's only important that you know what knife he was going to use and what he swapped it with. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the guy admitted what he done, how he done it but you have to have the knife and the details of the knife he was going to use before you can move on.
Not very logical approach is it?
So Sunak said he misappropriation they money. He had to change a 'formula' to be able to do it. So he did and then redistributed the funds. He even said it was purely down to him. So he took money allocated by the Government for a group of people, had to change a 'formula', rules, recipe, whatever, which he did, to be able to do so. He then gave this allocated money to another group.
This is classic fraud. It's never been his money to do with as he sees fit. He had to change the system to do this and then he did this without Government backing.
In fact fellow Tories criticised him at the time for doing this and claimed he only did this to increase his chances of election to PM when going up against Truss.
He stole money from the deprived to give to the rich, rich Tory voters.
From a BBC website I cannot quote because I recieved a ban last time...
'How fair is the process?
Areas were invited to bid for investment in transport, cultural, town centre and regeneration projects.
Local MPs were allowed to give their formal support to two bids before the proposals were judged by officials from the Treasury, Levelling Up Department and Department for Transport.
Assessing how fair this is, is not straightforward. Some projects - such as transport - may spread across several constituencies, represented by MPs from different parties.
For the projects that can be allocated to a single party, we can say that more money was allocated to Conservative constituencies than to Labour ones. But there are significantly more Conservative ones.
BBC analysis of the second round of funding found:
52% of successful bids that can be allocated to a party were in Conservative constituencies (the Conservatives won 56% of seats in the Commons in 2019)
24% of them were in Labour areas (Labour won 31% of the seats in 2019)
Projects in Tory constituencies were awarded a total of £1.21bn, compared with £471m in Labour ones.
There was one successful bid in a Lib Dem constituency, seven for the SNP, five for the DUP, three for Sinn Fein, and one each for the Alliance Party and Plaid Cymru.
Areas have also been competing for money under the government's Towns Fund. In that contest, of the 56 constituencies that won, 47 had Conservative MPs.
A zoo, a park and a pool - who got first round levelling up cash?
Towns Fund: How were the winners chosen?
What about deprived areas?
On the second round of funding, Rishi Sunak said: "two thirds of all the levelling up funding is going to the most deprived parts of our country".
BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
That analysis excludes a small number of awards that were given to areas covering multiple local authorities.
We asked the Levelling Up department about Mr Sunak's claim. It said it was not based on the government's index of multiple deprivation but was instead based on measures involving productivity, employment, vacancy rates, lack of skills and transport links".
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".
As for the criticism from his own party, after seeing the video,...'Conservative MP and Truss ally Jake Berry tweeted: "In public Rishi Sunak claims he wants to level up the North, but here, he boasts about trying to funnel vital investment away from deprived areas? He says one thing and does another."
A source in the rival Liz Truss campaign said: "Levelling up isn't about pitting one area of the country against another, or laying dividing lines between urban v rural, towns v cities.
"It is about unleashing growth and making sure every individual has the chance to thrive. Liz has a plan to create an aspiration nation based on equality of opportunity, and will deliver it in a conservative way."
So even fellow Tories know what he did was wrong.
Jonathon Blake, a BBC Political Commentator summarised Sunaks position after watching the video, he wrote...
'Rishi Sunak's comments appear to fly in the face of recent Conservative rhetoric about levelling up and securing Labour's former "red wall".
Why would the former chancellor be boasting about diverting funding away from deprived urban areas?
In short, because he was in Royal Tunbridge Wells at the time, one of his party's traditional heartlands, speaking to grassroots members.
And while the Conservative party doesn't publish data on its membership, research shows most of them live in the South East of England, and are generally older and relatively wealthy.
Mr Sunak's team insist he was talking about changes to ensure pockets of deprivation in towns and rural areas got the funding they deserved.
His opponents will seize on his comments as not just clumsy, but another example of him appearing to be out of touch'.
So even after all of this I've posted here, even after the magic 'formula' that you seem to suggest I was the only one who knew of its exsistence, has been evidence in the section under "What about Deprived Areas? ". Even what this 'formula' was replaced with is also explained. Even though what happened clearly shows Sunak took money from the poor, gave to his rich supporters in the South East in a blatant attempt to garner their favour, you still won't accept what I'm saying.
Sunak has no honesty or transparency, what he has done has taken millions from those who need it and given it to those that don't.
He stole that money and tried to buy political influence, even other Tories accuse him of this but you will not accept it. You seem to be following dogma and not logic, its all a bit silly Mrs x
It seems that you're saying none of the Tory areas awarded were deprived.
Did you read any of the data in that article?
Again, you accuse me of being obtuse whilst displaying the same sort of behaviour. Stop projecting. "I'm not saying anything, the official sources are, I'll quote it again, from the BBC... " So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".". Do what you want with it, i knew you would. Mrs x | |||
"Derailed, so in an attempt to bring it back….. How does the reworking of the WFA formula, the private school vat formula, farming IHT formula, borrowing against student loan debt formula, public sector pay rise formula, stack up when the person doing the reworking is a proven lier who embellishes the facts to promote her ability to change the formula? The allegations against Reeves have undermined public trust in the government’s policy decisions, I was not expecting it to go so wrong so quickly. Come and live up here and you will never be surprised again.It’s exactly the same.The government lacks any economic sense and thinks anyone rich who isn’t from the public sector holds wealth in Scrooge mcduck vaults" | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x
I've watched the video and read the press afterwards.
No one knows (apart from you) which formulae were changed. Well you haven't read enough then, have you. I'm going to post some actual copy from a report by the BBC which shows that that the scheme was altered in the second round. It states whether this was fair or not, it wasn't by the way.
It also touches on the infamous 'formula' and how it was changed. It then goes to show the impact of the change and whether this was fair.
You seem to be very obtuse today, waning to know the exact details of this formula. You cannot deny this was done, Sunak was recorded saying he did it.
Then it goes a little weird. Instead of asking why it was done, you just want the details of the formula, nothing is going to be okay for you until you get this.
It's like defending the actions of a man, who admits stabbing someone but did so after changing the knife. It's only important that you know what knife he was going to use and what he swapped it with. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the guy admitted what he done, how he done it but you have to have the knife and the details of the knife he was going to use before you can move on.
Not very logical approach is it?
So Sunak said he misappropriation they money. He had to change a 'formula' to be able to do it. So he did and then redistributed the funds. He even said it was purely down to him. So he took money allocated by the Government for a group of people, had to change a 'formula', rules, recipe, whatever, which he did, to be able to do so. He then gave this allocated money to another group.
This is classic fraud. It's never been his money to do with as he sees fit. He had to change the system to do this and then he did this without Government backing.
In fact fellow Tories criticised him at the time for doing this and claimed he only did this to increase his chances of election to PM when going up against Truss.
He stole money from the deprived to give to the rich, rich Tory voters.
From a BBC website I cannot quote because I recieved a ban last time...
'How fair is the process?
Areas were invited to bid for investment in transport, cultural, town centre and regeneration projects.
Local MPs were allowed to give their formal support to two bids before the proposals were judged by officials from the Treasury, Levelling Up Department and Department for Transport.
Assessing how fair this is, is not straightforward. Some projects - such as transport - may spread across several constituencies, represented by MPs from different parties.
For the projects that can be allocated to a single party, we can say that more money was allocated to Conservative constituencies than to Labour ones. But there are significantly more Conservative ones.
BBC analysis of the second round of funding found:
52% of successful bids that can be allocated to a party were in Conservative constituencies (the Conservatives won 56% of seats in the Commons in 2019)
24% of them were in Labour areas (Labour won 31% of the seats in 2019)
Projects in Tory constituencies were awarded a total of £1.21bn, compared with £471m in Labour ones.
There was one successful bid in a Lib Dem constituency, seven for the SNP, five for the DUP, three for Sinn Fein, and one each for the Alliance Party and Plaid Cymru.
Areas have also been competing for money under the government's Towns Fund. In that contest, of the 56 constituencies that won, 47 had Conservative MPs.
A zoo, a park and a pool - who got first round levelling up cash?
Towns Fund: How were the winners chosen?
What about deprived areas?
On the second round of funding, Rishi Sunak said: "two thirds of all the levelling up funding is going to the most deprived parts of our country".
BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
That analysis excludes a small number of awards that were given to areas covering multiple local authorities.
We asked the Levelling Up department about Mr Sunak's claim. It said it was not based on the government's index of multiple deprivation but was instead based on measures involving productivity, employment, vacancy rates, lack of skills and transport links".
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".
As for the criticism from his own party, after seeing the video,...'Conservative MP and Truss ally Jake Berry tweeted: "In public Rishi Sunak claims he wants to level up the North, but here, he boasts about trying to funnel vital investment away from deprived areas? He says one thing and does another."
A source in the rival Liz Truss campaign said: "Levelling up isn't about pitting one area of the country against another, or laying dividing lines between urban v rural, towns v cities.
"It is about unleashing growth and making sure every individual has the chance to thrive. Liz has a plan to create an aspiration nation based on equality of opportunity, and will deliver it in a conservative way."
So even fellow Tories know what he did was wrong.
Jonathon Blake, a BBC Political Commentator summarised Sunaks position after watching the video, he wrote...
'Rishi Sunak's comments appear to fly in the face of recent Conservative rhetoric about levelling up and securing Labour's former "red wall".
Why would the former chancellor be boasting about diverting funding away from deprived urban areas?
In short, because he was in Royal Tunbridge Wells at the time, one of his party's traditional heartlands, speaking to grassroots members.
And while the Conservative party doesn't publish data on its membership, research shows most of them live in the South East of England, and are generally older and relatively wealthy.
Mr Sunak's team insist he was talking about changes to ensure pockets of deprivation in towns and rural areas got the funding they deserved.
His opponents will seize on his comments as not just clumsy, but another example of him appearing to be out of touch'.
So even after all of this I've posted here, even after the magic 'formula' that you seem to suggest I was the only one who knew of its exsistence, has been evidence in the section under "What about Deprived Areas? ". Even what this 'formula' was replaced with is also explained. Even though what happened clearly shows Sunak took money from the poor, gave to his rich supporters in the South East in a blatant attempt to garner their favour, you still won't accept what I'm saying.
Sunak has no honesty or transparency, what he has done has taken millions from those who need it and given it to those that don't.
He stole that money and tried to buy political influence, even other Tories accuse him of this but you will not accept it. You seem to be following dogma and not logic, its all a bit silly Mrs x
It seems that you're saying none of the Tory areas awarded were deprived.
Did you read any of the data in that article?
Again, you accuse me of being obtuse whilst displaying the same sort of behaviour. Stop projecting. I'm not saying anything, the official sources are, I'll quote it again, from the BBC... "
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".". Do what you want with it, i knew you would. Mrs x"Were those areas which received more funding deprived or not? Or maybe you don't know? | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x
I've watched the video and read the press afterwards.
No one knows (apart from you) which formulae were changed. Well you haven't read enough then, have you. I'm going to post some actual copy from a report by the BBC which shows that that the scheme was altered in the second round. It states whether this was fair or not, it wasn't by the way.
It also touches on the infamous 'formula' and how it was changed. It then goes to show the impact of the change and whether this was fair.
You seem to be very obtuse today, waning to know the exact details of this formula. You cannot deny this was done, Sunak was recorded saying he did it.
Then it goes a little weird. Instead of asking why it was done, you just want the details of the formula, nothing is going to be okay for you until you get this.
It's like defending the actions of a man, who admits stabbing someone but did so after changing the knife. It's only important that you know what knife he was going to use and what he swapped it with. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the guy admitted what he done, how he done it but you have to have the knife and the details of the knife he was going to use before you can move on.
Not very logical approach is it?
So Sunak said he misappropriation they money. He had to change a 'formula' to be able to do it. So he did and then redistributed the funds. He even said it was purely down to him. So he took money allocated by the Government for a group of people, had to change a 'formula', rules, recipe, whatever, which he did, to be able to do so. He then gave this allocated money to another group.
This is classic fraud. It's never been his money to do with as he sees fit. He had to change the system to do this and then he did this without Government backing.
In fact fellow Tories criticised him at the time for doing this and claimed he only did this to increase his chances of election to PM when going up against Truss.
He stole money from the deprived to give to the rich, rich Tory voters.
From a BBC website I cannot quote because I recieved a ban last time...
'How fair is the process?
Areas were invited to bid for investment in transport, cultural, town centre and regeneration projects.
Local MPs were allowed to give their formal support to two bids before the proposals were judged by officials from the Treasury, Levelling Up Department and Department for Transport.
Assessing how fair this is, is not straightforward. Some projects - such as transport - may spread across several constituencies, represented by MPs from different parties.
For the projects that can be allocated to a single party, we can say that more money was allocated to Conservative constituencies than to Labour ones. But there are significantly more Conservative ones.
BBC analysis of the second round of funding found:
52% of successful bids that can be allocated to a party were in Conservative constituencies (the Conservatives won 56% of seats in the Commons in 2019)
24% of them were in Labour areas (Labour won 31% of the seats in 2019)
Projects in Tory constituencies were awarded a total of £1.21bn, compared with £471m in Labour ones.
There was one successful bid in a Lib Dem constituency, seven for the SNP, five for the DUP, three for Sinn Fein, and one each for the Alliance Party and Plaid Cymru.
Areas have also been competing for money under the government's Towns Fund. In that contest, of the 56 constituencies that won, 47 had Conservative MPs.
A zoo, a park and a pool - who got first round levelling up cash?
Towns Fund: How were the winners chosen?
What about deprived areas?
On the second round of funding, Rishi Sunak said: "two thirds of all the levelling up funding is going to the most deprived parts of our country".
BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
That analysis excludes a small number of awards that were given to areas covering multiple local authorities.
We asked the Levelling Up department about Mr Sunak's claim. It said it was not based on the government's index of multiple deprivation but was instead based on measures involving productivity, employment, vacancy rates, lack of skills and transport links".
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".
As for the criticism from his own party, after seeing the video,...'Conservative MP and Truss ally Jake Berry tweeted: "In public Rishi Sunak claims he wants to level up the North, but here, he boasts about trying to funnel vital investment away from deprived areas? He says one thing and does another."
A source in the rival Liz Truss campaign said: "Levelling up isn't about pitting one area of the country against another, or laying dividing lines between urban v rural, towns v cities.
"It is about unleashing growth and making sure every individual has the chance to thrive. Liz has a plan to create an aspiration nation based on equality of opportunity, and will deliver it in a conservative way."
So even fellow Tories know what he did was wrong.
Jonathon Blake, a BBC Political Commentator summarised Sunaks position after watching the video, he wrote...
'Rishi Sunak's comments appear to fly in the face of recent Conservative rhetoric about levelling up and securing Labour's former "red wall".
Why would the former chancellor be boasting about diverting funding away from deprived urban areas?
In short, because he was in Royal Tunbridge Wells at the time, one of his party's traditional heartlands, speaking to grassroots members.
And while the Conservative party doesn't publish data on its membership, research shows most of them live in the South East of England, and are generally older and relatively wealthy.
Mr Sunak's team insist he was talking about changes to ensure pockets of deprivation in towns and rural areas got the funding they deserved.
His opponents will seize on his comments as not just clumsy, but another example of him appearing to be out of touch'.
So even after all of this I've posted here, even after the magic 'formula' that you seem to suggest I was the only one who knew of its exsistence, has been evidence in the section under "What about Deprived Areas? ". Even what this 'formula' was replaced with is also explained. Even though what happened clearly shows Sunak took money from the poor, gave to his rich supporters in the South East in a blatant attempt to garner their favour, you still won't accept what I'm saying.
Sunak has no honesty or transparency, what he has done has taken millions from those who need it and given it to those that don't.
He stole that money and tried to buy political influence, even other Tories accuse him of this but you will not accept it. You seem to be following dogma and not logic, its all a bit silly Mrs x
It seems that you're saying none of the Tory areas awarded were deprived.
Did you read any of the data in that article?
Again, you accuse me of being obtuse whilst displaying the same sort of behaviour. Stop projecting. I'm not saying anything, the official sources are, I'll quote it again, from the BBC... "
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".". Do what you want with it, i knew you would. Mrs x
Were those areas which received more funding deprived or not?
Or maybe you don't know?
"I know there was a massive 12% drop in awards to the most deprived area in the year after the formula was changed.... BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round. Sunak was boasting about diverting money from deprived areas. BBC correspondent confirms this as do Tory MPs castigated Sunak for what he did, if you don't believe me listen to them, Mrs x | |||
| |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x
I've watched the video and read the press afterwards.
No one knows (apart from you) which formulae were changed. Well you haven't read enough then, have you. I'm going to post some actual copy from a report by the BBC which shows that that the scheme was altered in the second round. It states whether this was fair or not, it wasn't by the way.
It also touches on the infamous 'formula' and how it was changed. It then goes to show the impact of the change and whether this was fair.
You seem to be very obtuse today, waning to know the exact details of this formula. You cannot deny this was done, Sunak was recorded saying he did it.
Then it goes a little weird. Instead of asking why it was done, you just want the details of the formula, nothing is going to be okay for you until you get this.
It's like defending the actions of a man, who admits stabbing someone but did so after changing the knife. It's only important that you know what knife he was going to use and what he swapped it with. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the guy admitted what he done, how he done it but you have to have the knife and the details of the knife he was going to use before you can move on.
Not very logical approach is it?
So Sunak said he misappropriation they money. He had to change a 'formula' to be able to do it. So he did and then redistributed the funds. He even said it was purely down to him. So he took money allocated by the Government for a group of people, had to change a 'formula', rules, recipe, whatever, which he did, to be able to do so. He then gave this allocated money to another group.
This is classic fraud. It's never been his money to do with as he sees fit. He had to change the system to do this and then he did this without Government backing.
In fact fellow Tories criticised him at the time for doing this and claimed he only did this to increase his chances of election to PM when going up against Truss.
He stole money from the deprived to give to the rich, rich Tory voters.
From a BBC website I cannot quote because I recieved a ban last time...
'How fair is the process?
Areas were invited to bid for investment in transport, cultural, town centre and regeneration projects.
Local MPs were allowed to give their formal support to two bids before the proposals were judged by officials from the Treasury, Levelling Up Department and Department for Transport.
Assessing how fair this is, is not straightforward. Some projects - such as transport - may spread across several constituencies, represented by MPs from different parties.
For the projects that can be allocated to a single party, we can say that more money was allocated to Conservative constituencies than to Labour ones. But there are significantly more Conservative ones.
BBC analysis of the second round of funding found:
52% of successful bids that can be allocated to a party were in Conservative constituencies (the Conservatives won 56% of seats in the Commons in 2019)
24% of them were in Labour areas (Labour won 31% of the seats in 2019)
Projects in Tory constituencies were awarded a total of £1.21bn, compared with £471m in Labour ones.
There was one successful bid in a Lib Dem constituency, seven for the SNP, five for the DUP, three for Sinn Fein, and one each for the Alliance Party and Plaid Cymru.
Areas have also been competing for money under the government's Towns Fund. In that contest, of the 56 constituencies that won, 47 had Conservative MPs.
A zoo, a park and a pool - who got first round levelling up cash?
Towns Fund: How were the winners chosen?
What about deprived areas?
On the second round of funding, Rishi Sunak said: "two thirds of all the levelling up funding is going to the most deprived parts of our country".
BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
That analysis excludes a small number of awards that were given to areas covering multiple local authorities.
We asked the Levelling Up department about Mr Sunak's claim. It said it was not based on the government's index of multiple deprivation but was instead based on measures involving productivity, employment, vacancy rates, lack of skills and transport links".
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".
As for the criticism from his own party, after seeing the video,...'Conservative MP and Truss ally Jake Berry tweeted: "In public Rishi Sunak claims he wants to level up the North, but here, he boasts about trying to funnel vital investment away from deprived areas? He says one thing and does another."
A source in the rival Liz Truss campaign said: "Levelling up isn't about pitting one area of the country against another, or laying dividing lines between urban v rural, towns v cities.
"It is about unleashing growth and making sure every individual has the chance to thrive. Liz has a plan to create an aspiration nation based on equality of opportunity, and will deliver it in a conservative way."
So even fellow Tories know what he did was wrong.
Jonathon Blake, a BBC Political Commentator summarised Sunaks position after watching the video, he wrote...
'Rishi Sunak's comments appear to fly in the face of recent Conservative rhetoric about levelling up and securing Labour's former "red wall".
Why would the former chancellor be boasting about diverting funding away from deprived urban areas?
In short, because he was in Royal Tunbridge Wells at the time, one of his party's traditional heartlands, speaking to grassroots members.
And while the Conservative party doesn't publish data on its membership, research shows most of them live in the South East of England, and are generally older and relatively wealthy.
Mr Sunak's team insist he was talking about changes to ensure pockets of deprivation in towns and rural areas got the funding they deserved.
His opponents will seize on his comments as not just clumsy, but another example of him appearing to be out of touch'.
So even after all of this I've posted here, even after the magic 'formula' that you seem to suggest I was the only one who knew of its exsistence, has been evidence in the section under "What about Deprived Areas? ". Even what this 'formula' was replaced with is also explained. Even though what happened clearly shows Sunak took money from the poor, gave to his rich supporters in the South East in a blatant attempt to garner their favour, you still won't accept what I'm saying.
Sunak has no honesty or transparency, what he has done has taken millions from those who need it and given it to those that don't.
He stole that money and tried to buy political influence, even other Tories accuse him of this but you will not accept it. You seem to be following dogma and not logic, its all a bit silly Mrs x
It seems that you're saying none of the Tory areas awarded were deprived.
Did you read any of the data in that article?
Again, you accuse me of being obtuse whilst displaying the same sort of behaviour. Stop projecting. I'm not saying anything, the official sources are, I'll quote it again, from the BBC... "
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".". Do what you want with it, i knew you would. Mrs x
Were those areas which received more funding deprived or not?
Or maybe you don't know?
I know there was a massive 12% drop in awards to the most deprived area in the year after the formula was changed.... BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
Sunak was boasting about diverting money from deprived areas. BBC correspondent confirms this as do Tory MPs castigated Sunak for what he did, if you don't believe me listen to them, Mrs x"So the most deprived areas still received the most funding? As I said earlier, we all deserve funding, my mind won't be changed on that. | |||
"Google:- Call a General Election Call a General Election I would like there to be another General Election. I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election. Sign this petition 1,404,047 signatures" | |||
| |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x
I've watched the video and read the press afterwards.
No one knows (apart from you) which formulae were changed. Well you haven't read enough then, have you. I'm going to post some actual copy from a report by the BBC which shows that that the scheme was altered in the second round. It states whether this was fair or not, it wasn't by the way.
It also touches on the infamous 'formula' and how it was changed. It then goes to show the impact of the change and whether this was fair.
You seem to be very obtuse today, waning to know the exact details of this formula. You cannot deny this was done, Sunak was recorded saying he did it.
Then it goes a little weird. Instead of asking why it was done, you just want the details of the formula, nothing is going to be okay for you until you get this.
It's like defending the actions of a man, who admits stabbing someone but did so after changing the knife. It's only important that you know what knife he was going to use and what he swapped it with. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the guy admitted what he done, how he done it but you have to have the knife and the details of the knife he was going to use before you can move on.
Not very logical approach is it?
So Sunak said he misappropriation they money. He had to change a 'formula' to be able to do it. So he did and then redistributed the funds. He even said it was purely down to him. So he took money allocated by the Government for a group of people, had to change a 'formula', rules, recipe, whatever, which he did, to be able to do so. He then gave this allocated money to another group.
This is classic fraud. It's never been his money to do with as he sees fit. He had to change the system to do this and then he did this without Government backing.
In fact fellow Tories criticised him at the time for doing this and claimed he only did this to increase his chances of election to PM when going up against Truss.
He stole money from the deprived to give to the rich, rich Tory voters.
From a BBC website I cannot quote because I recieved a ban last time...
'How fair is the process?
Areas were invited to bid for investment in transport, cultural, town centre and regeneration projects.
Local MPs were allowed to give their formal support to two bids before the proposals were judged by officials from the Treasury, Levelling Up Department and Department for Transport.
Assessing how fair this is, is not straightforward. Some projects - such as transport - may spread across several constituencies, represented by MPs from different parties.
For the projects that can be allocated to a single party, we can say that more money was allocated to Conservative constituencies than to Labour ones. But there are significantly more Conservative ones.
BBC analysis of the second round of funding found:
52% of successful bids that can be allocated to a party were in Conservative constituencies (the Conservatives won 56% of seats in the Commons in 2019)
24% of them were in Labour areas (Labour won 31% of the seats in 2019)
Projects in Tory constituencies were awarded a total of £1.21bn, compared with £471m in Labour ones.
There was one successful bid in a Lib Dem constituency, seven for the SNP, five for the DUP, three for Sinn Fein, and one each for the Alliance Party and Plaid Cymru.
Areas have also been competing for money under the government's Towns Fund. In that contest, of the 56 constituencies that won, 47 had Conservative MPs.
A zoo, a park and a pool - who got first round levelling up cash?
Towns Fund: How were the winners chosen?
What about deprived areas?
On the second round of funding, Rishi Sunak said: "two thirds of all the levelling up funding is going to the most deprived parts of our country".
BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
That analysis excludes a small number of awards that were given to areas covering multiple local authorities.
We asked the Levelling Up department about Mr Sunak's claim. It said it was not based on the government's index of multiple deprivation but was instead based on measures involving productivity, employment, vacancy rates, lack of skills and transport links".
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".
As for the criticism from his own party, after seeing the video,...'Conservative MP and Truss ally Jake Berry tweeted: "In public Rishi Sunak claims he wants to level up the North, but here, he boasts about trying to funnel vital investment away from deprived areas? He says one thing and does another."
A source in the rival Liz Truss campaign said: "Levelling up isn't about pitting one area of the country against another, or laying dividing lines between urban v rural, towns v cities.
"It is about unleashing growth and making sure every individual has the chance to thrive. Liz has a plan to create an aspiration nation based on equality of opportunity, and will deliver it in a conservative way."
So even fellow Tories know what he did was wrong.
Jonathon Blake, a BBC Political Commentator summarised Sunaks position after watching the video, he wrote...
'Rishi Sunak's comments appear to fly in the face of recent Conservative rhetoric about levelling up and securing Labour's former "red wall".
Why would the former chancellor be boasting about diverting funding away from deprived urban areas?
In short, because he was in Royal Tunbridge Wells at the time, one of his party's traditional heartlands, speaking to grassroots members.
And while the Conservative party doesn't publish data on its membership, research shows most of them live in the South East of England, and are generally older and relatively wealthy.
Mr Sunak's team insist he was talking about changes to ensure pockets of deprivation in towns and rural areas got the funding they deserved.
His opponents will seize on his comments as not just clumsy, but another example of him appearing to be out of touch'.
So even after all of this I've posted here, even after the magic 'formula' that you seem to suggest I was the only one who knew of its exsistence, has been evidence in the section under "What about Deprived Areas? ". Even what this 'formula' was replaced with is also explained. Even though what happened clearly shows Sunak took money from the poor, gave to his rich supporters in the South East in a blatant attempt to garner their favour, you still won't accept what I'm saying.
Sunak has no honesty or transparency, what he has done has taken millions from those who need it and given it to those that don't.
He stole that money and tried to buy political influence, even other Tories accuse him of this but you will not accept it. You seem to be following dogma and not logic, its all a bit silly Mrs x
It seems that you're saying none of the Tory areas awarded were deprived.
Did you read any of the data in that article?
Again, you accuse me of being obtuse whilst displaying the same sort of behaviour. Stop projecting. I'm not saying anything, the official sources are, I'll quote it again, from the BBC... "
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".". Do what you want with it, i knew you would. Mrs x
Were those areas which received more funding deprived or not?
Or maybe you don't know?
I know there was a massive 12% drop in awards to the most deprived area in the year after the formula was changed.... BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
Sunak was boasting about diverting money from deprived areas. BBC correspondent confirms this as do Tory MPs castigated Sunak for what he did, if you don't believe me listen to them, Mrs x
So the most deprived areas still received the most funding?
As I said earlier, we all deserve funding, my mind won't be changed on that. "Not from a Levelling Up programme we don't. That is like saying a programme for disabled children to encourage participation in sport should also be given to Gifted Public Schools Athletes. It for a specific purpose, here for disabled kids, and for Levelling Up its for deprived areas. But don't worry Sunak sorted that out for you. Regular Robin Hood except he steals from the poor and gives to the rich, Mrs x | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative?
Mrs x
He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding?
Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt?
He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him.
It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent.
It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction.
He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy.
He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent.
He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with.
Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario.
Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege.
Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course.
Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x
I've watched the video and read the press afterwards.
No one knows (apart from you) which formulae were changed. Well you haven't read enough then, have you. I'm going to post some actual copy from a report by the BBC which shows that that the scheme was altered in the second round. It states whether this was fair or not, it wasn't by the way.
It also touches on the infamous 'formula' and how it was changed. It then goes to show the impact of the change and whether this was fair.
You seem to be very obtuse today, waning to know the exact details of this formula. You cannot deny this was done, Sunak was recorded saying he did it.
Then it goes a little weird. Instead of asking why it was done, you just want the details of the formula, nothing is going to be okay for you until you get this.
It's like defending the actions of a man, who admits stabbing someone but did so after changing the knife. It's only important that you know what knife he was going to use and what he swapped it with. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the guy admitted what he done, how he done it but you have to have the knife and the details of the knife he was going to use before you can move on.
Not very logical approach is it?
So Sunak said he misappropriation they money. He had to change a 'formula' to be able to do it. So he did and then redistributed the funds. He even said it was purely down to him. So he took money allocated by the Government for a group of people, had to change a 'formula', rules, recipe, whatever, which he did, to be able to do so. He then gave this allocated money to another group.
This is classic fraud. It's never been his money to do with as he sees fit. He had to change the system to do this and then he did this without Government backing.
In fact fellow Tories criticised him at the time for doing this and claimed he only did this to increase his chances of election to PM when going up against Truss.
He stole money from the deprived to give to the rich, rich Tory voters.
From a BBC website I cannot quote because I recieved a ban last time...
'How fair is the process?
Areas were invited to bid for investment in transport, cultural, town centre and regeneration projects.
Local MPs were allowed to give their formal support to two bids before the proposals were judged by officials from the Treasury, Levelling Up Department and Department for Transport.
Assessing how fair this is, is not straightforward. Some projects - such as transport - may spread across several constituencies, represented by MPs from different parties.
For the projects that can be allocated to a single party, we can say that more money was allocated to Conservative constituencies than to Labour ones. But there are significantly more Conservative ones.
BBC analysis of the second round of funding found:
52% of successful bids that can be allocated to a party were in Conservative constituencies (the Conservatives won 56% of seats in the Commons in 2019)
24% of them were in Labour areas (Labour won 31% of the seats in 2019)
Projects in Tory constituencies were awarded a total of £1.21bn, compared with £471m in Labour ones.
There was one successful bid in a Lib Dem constituency, seven for the SNP, five for the DUP, three for Sinn Fein, and one each for the Alliance Party and Plaid Cymru.
Areas have also been competing for money under the government's Towns Fund. In that contest, of the 56 constituencies that won, 47 had Conservative MPs.
A zoo, a park and a pool - who got first round levelling up cash?
Towns Fund: How were the winners chosen?
What about deprived areas?
On the second round of funding, Rishi Sunak said: "two thirds of all the levelling up funding is going to the most deprived parts of our country".
BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
That analysis excludes a small number of awards that were given to areas covering multiple local authorities.
We asked the Levelling Up department about Mr Sunak's claim. It said it was not based on the government's index of multiple deprivation but was instead based on measures involving productivity, employment, vacancy rates, lack of skills and transport links".
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".
As for the criticism from his own party, after seeing the video,...'Conservative MP and Truss ally Jake Berry tweeted: "In public Rishi Sunak claims he wants to level up the North, but here, he boasts about trying to funnel vital investment away from deprived areas? He says one thing and does another."
A source in the rival Liz Truss campaign said: "Levelling up isn't about pitting one area of the country against another, or laying dividing lines between urban v rural, towns v cities.
"It is about unleashing growth and making sure every individual has the chance to thrive. Liz has a plan to create an aspiration nation based on equality of opportunity, and will deliver it in a conservative way."
So even fellow Tories know what he did was wrong.
Jonathon Blake, a BBC Political Commentator summarised Sunaks position after watching the video, he wrote...
'Rishi Sunak's comments appear to fly in the face of recent Conservative rhetoric about levelling up and securing Labour's former "red wall".
Why would the former chancellor be boasting about diverting funding away from deprived urban areas?
In short, because he was in Royal Tunbridge Wells at the time, one of his party's traditional heartlands, speaking to grassroots members.
And while the Conservative party doesn't publish data on its membership, research shows most of them live in the South East of England, and are generally older and relatively wealthy.
Mr Sunak's team insist he was talking about changes to ensure pockets of deprivation in towns and rural areas got the funding they deserved.
His opponents will seize on his comments as not just clumsy, but another example of him appearing to be out of touch'.
So even after all of this I've posted here, even after the magic 'formula' that you seem to suggest I was the only one who knew of its exsistence, has been evidence in the section under "What about Deprived Areas? ". Even what this 'formula' was replaced with is also explained. Even though what happened clearly shows Sunak took money from the poor, gave to his rich supporters in the South East in a blatant attempt to garner their favour, you still won't accept what I'm saying.
Sunak has no honesty or transparency, what he has done has taken millions from those who need it and given it to those that don't.
He stole that money and tried to buy political influence, even other Tories accuse him of this but you will not accept it. You seem to be following dogma and not logic, its all a bit silly Mrs x
It seems that you're saying none of the Tory areas awarded were deprived.
Did you read any of the data in that article?
Again, you accuse me of being obtuse whilst displaying the same sort of behaviour. Stop projecting. I'm not saying anything, the official sources are, I'll quote it again, from the BBC... "
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".". Do what you want with it, i knew you would. Mrs x
Were those areas which received more funding deprived or not?
Or maybe you don't know?
I know there was a massive 12% drop in awards to the most deprived area in the year after the formula was changed.... BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
Sunak was boasting about diverting money from deprived areas. BBC correspondent confirms this as do Tory MPs castigated Sunak for what he did, if you don't believe me listen to them, Mrs x
So the most deprived areas still received the most funding?
As I said earlier, we all deserve funding, my mind won't be changed on that. Not from a Levelling Up programme we don't.
That is like saying a programme for disabled children to encourage participation in sport should also be given to Gifted Public Schools Athletes. It for a specific purpose, here for disabled kids, and for Levelling Up its for deprived areas.
But don't worry Sunak sorted that out for you. Regular Robin Hood except he steals from the poor and gives to the rich, Mrs x"Where is the evidence Sunak steals from the poor | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative?
Mrs x
He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding?
Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt?
He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him.
It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent.
It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction.
He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy.
He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent.
He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with.
Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario.
Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege.
Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course.
Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x
I've watched the video and read the press afterwards.
No one knows (apart from you) which formulae were changed. Well you haven't read enough then, have you. I'm going to post some actual copy from a report by the BBC which shows that that the scheme was altered in the second round. It states whether this was fair or not, it wasn't by the way.
It also touches on the infamous 'formula' and how it was changed. It then goes to show the impact of the change and whether this was fair.
You seem to be very obtuse today, waning to know the exact details of this formula. You cannot deny this was done, Sunak was recorded saying he did it.
Then it goes a little weird. Instead of asking why it was done, you just want the details of the formula, nothing is going to be okay for you until you get this.
It's like defending the actions of a man, who admits stabbing someone but did so after changing the knife. It's only important that you know what knife he was going to use and what he swapped it with. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the guy admitted what he done, how he done it but you have to have the knife and the details of the knife he was going to use before you can move on.
Not very logical approach is it?
So Sunak said he misappropriation they money. He had to change a 'formula' to be able to do it. So he did and then redistributed the funds. He even said it was purely down to him. So he took money allocated by the Government for a group of people, had to change a 'formula', rules, recipe, whatever, which he did, to be able to do so. He then gave this allocated money to another group.
This is classic fraud. It's never been his money to do with as he sees fit. He had to change the system to do this and then he did this without Government backing.
In fact fellow Tories criticised him at the time for doing this and claimed he only did this to increase his chances of election to PM when going up against Truss.
He stole money from the deprived to give to the rich, rich Tory voters.
From a BBC website I cannot quote because I recieved a ban last time...
'How fair is the process?
Areas were invited to bid for investment in transport, cultural, town centre and regeneration projects.
Local MPs were allowed to give their formal support to two bids before the proposals were judged by officials from the Treasury, Levelling Up Department and Department for Transport.
Assessing how fair this is, is not straightforward. Some projects - such as transport - may spread across several constituencies, represented by MPs from different parties.
For the projects that can be allocated to a single party, we can say that more money was allocated to Conservative constituencies than to Labour ones. But there are significantly more Conservative ones.
BBC analysis of the second round of funding found:
52% of successful bids that can be allocated to a party were in Conservative constituencies (the Conservatives won 56% of seats in the Commons in 2019)
24% of them were in Labour areas (Labour won 31% of the seats in 2019)
Projects in Tory constituencies were awarded a total of £1.21bn, compared with £471m in Labour ones.
There was one successful bid in a Lib Dem constituency, seven for the SNP, five for the DUP, three for Sinn Fein, and one each for the Alliance Party and Plaid Cymru.
Areas have also been competing for money under the government's Towns Fund. In that contest, of the 56 constituencies that won, 47 had Conservative MPs.
A zoo, a park and a pool - who got first round levelling up cash?
Towns Fund: How were the winners chosen?
What about deprived areas?
On the second round of funding, Rishi Sunak said: "two thirds of all the levelling up funding is going to the most deprived parts of our country".
BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
That analysis excludes a small number of awards that were given to areas covering multiple local authorities.
We asked the Levelling Up department about Mr Sunak's claim. It said it was not based on the government's index of multiple deprivation but was instead based on measures involving productivity, employment, vacancy rates, lack of skills and transport links".
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".
As for the criticism from his own party, after seeing the video,...'Conservative MP and Truss ally Jake Berry tweeted: "In public Rishi Sunak claims he wants to level up the North, but here, he boasts about trying to funnel vital investment away from deprived areas? He says one thing and does another."
A source in the rival Liz Truss campaign said: "Levelling up isn't about pitting one area of the country against another, or laying dividing lines between urban v rural, towns v cities.
"It is about unleashing growth and making sure every individual has the chance to thrive. Liz has a plan to create an aspiration nation based on equality of opportunity, and will deliver it in a conservative way."
So even fellow Tories know what he did was wrong.
Jonathon Blake, a BBC Political Commentator summarised Sunaks position after watching the video, he wrote...
'Rishi Sunak's comments appear to fly in the face of recent Conservative rhetoric about levelling up and securing Labour's former "red wall".
Why would the former chancellor be boasting about diverting funding away from deprived urban areas?
In short, because he was in Royal Tunbridge Wells at the time, one of his party's traditional heartlands, speaking to grassroots members.
And while the Conservative party doesn't publish data on its membership, research shows most of them live in the South East of England, and are generally older and relatively wealthy.
Mr Sunak's team insist he was talking about changes to ensure pockets of deprivation in towns and rural areas got the funding they deserved.
His opponents will seize on his comments as not just clumsy, but another example of him appearing to be out of touch'.
So even after all of this I've posted here, even after the magic 'formula' that you seem to suggest I was the only one who knew of its exsistence, has been evidence in the section under "What about Deprived Areas? ". Even what this 'formula' was replaced with is also explained. Even though what happened clearly shows Sunak took money from the poor, gave to his rich supporters in the South East in a blatant attempt to garner their favour, you still won't accept what I'm saying.
Sunak has no honesty or transparency, what he has done has taken millions from those who need it and given it to those that don't.
He stole that money and tried to buy political influence, even other Tories accuse him of this but you will not accept it. You seem to be following dogma and not logic, its all a bit silly Mrs x
It seems that you're saying none of the Tory areas awarded were deprived.
Did you read any of the data in that article?
Again, you accuse me of being obtuse whilst displaying the same sort of behaviour. Stop projecting. I'm not saying anything, the official sources are, I'll quote it again, from the BBC... "
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".". Do what you want with it, i knew you would. Mrs x
Were those areas which received more funding deprived or not?
Or maybe you don't know?
I know there was a massive 12% drop in awards to the most deprived area in the year after the formula was changed.... BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
Sunak was boasting about diverting money from deprived areas. BBC correspondent confirms this as do Tory MPs castigated Sunak for what he did, if you don't believe me listen to them, Mrs x
So the most deprived areas still received the most funding?
As I said earlier, we all deserve funding, my mind won't be changed on that. Not from a Levelling Up programme we don't.
That is like saying a programme for disabled children to encourage participation in sport should also be given to Gifted Public Schools Athletes. It for a specific purpose, here for disabled kids, and for Levelling Up its for deprived areas.
But don't worry Sunak sorted that out for you. Regular Robin Hood except he steals from the poor and gives to the rich, Mrs x
Where is the evidence Sunak steals from the poor"I didn’t like Sunak much but he did one thing that made me like him.Whenever he received a gift as prime minister he would donate it to the treasury and buy it for market value with his own money | |||
"The video was in Tunbridge Wells, were he was happy to tell those present that he'd changed the 'levelling up' formulas and he was taking money from deprived urban areas to give to them. Tunbridge Wells is tge least deprived area in Kent. Sunak has also been accused of stealing the levelling up funds from Wales, allocated for railways. Look it up it's not new news. And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Animal Farm wannabe. And please be more polite, if not polite less antagonistic. You don't have to use words like 'rant' in your response, it's not nice... And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative? Mrs x He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding? Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt? He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him. It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent. It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction. He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy. He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent. He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with. Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario. Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege. Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course. Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised Mrs x Why is there a need for 'levelling up' when more deprived areas already receive more funding per capita than other less deprived areas? You've unfortunately fallen for the nonsense political parties will tell certain areas when they want votes. I'm genuinely amused that you've found the word rant antagonising So now you cannot deny this was done but are asking me why I believed that a deprived areas need additional funding and that I've fallen for things said to me during an election.
And is everything a rant that does not fit in with your basic narrative?
Mrs x
He changed the formulas so more areas could get funding?
Why should 'deprived' areas get more funding? Surely, we are all entitled to funding from Govt?
He didn't 'steal' any money, if you insist he did then I expect you to be as vocal about others as you are him.
It's called Levelling Up, I don't know if you are upset with something I've said but you seem difficult with me. Levelling up was designed to lift deprived, poorer areas to achieve a Level playing field with more affluent.
It moves in one direction with the word UP at the end of the scheme a basic indicator of this direction.
He took funds from this programme claiming it was fairer this way and boasted he was going to reallocate these funds to areas he deemed worthy.
He stated this at a garden party, in Tunbridge Wells, the least deprived area of Kent.
He stole that money from deprived areas. It was allocated for a specific thing that he no longer wanted to follow through with.
Just as well it was a disability funds for under privileged kids, he'd have to have spun it to the max if he decided to change it and give it to the Athletic Funds of the Public School system. I know he didn't do this but it's a similar scenario.
Basically taking from the under privileged and giving to the privilege.
Don't know why I think this is scandalous anymore, after everything that's happened over the last few years its just par for the course.
Levelling Up, what a joke but you are right everyone deserves it but not like this, a bastardised
Can I ask do you believe in what you've just said? If you do, you do realise the nonsense in your statement and you are agreeing with me without even realising you are.
Firstly there is a need for deprived areas to recieve more funding under the Levelling Up scheme. This is basic stuff.
There is a need, under this scheme, to give additional funds to deprived areas and the reason for this is in the descriptor of the area. They are deprived...
This should continue until they have, can you see where I'm going with this? Levelled Up, not surpassed or overtaken but it should stop when the schemes aims are complete. I'm sure you can understand this but are holding a position through some misplaced pride rather than any logic.
Secondly are you saying that things are said during elections that are not honest or transparent to garner support for the 'fibbing' party? If you are then that supports what I'm saying and this behaviour should be called out no matter who is saying it.
I haven't at any point denied the funding formulas were changed. I've argued against the 'steal' aspect of it.
Why are areas deprived when those areas receive more funding than less deprived areas? Remember, they actually do receive more funding, always have done. But maybe that's too basic to understand.
Why have you asked me to 'be nicer' but insist on using inflammatory language in your arguments?What inflammatory language have I used? Let me know and I'll apologise for it.
The stealing is not my opinion. He misappropriation funds, this can be criminal. He openly said he did it on film. There are no claims from Wales that he has done similar there.
But then again he'll face no charges just like the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid and the scheme set up to allocate these contracts. It's corrupt the highest level.
Mrs x
The language you use doesn't bother me a nd I'm not looking for an apology, I just find it amusing.
The stealing is your opinion, theft is a criminal offence and as he hasn't been charged with a crime, well....
He spoke on video of reworking a formula, something that all Govts do when it suits there needs. He reworked a formula that allowed him to moved funds from the deprived to the wealthy. It wasn't to do with the Levelling Up it was to do with how you calculate deprivation.
He misappropriation those funds, nothing more nothing less, they were in place already yet her chose to use them contrary to their original purpose. Government didn't do thus he did unilaterally.
Just like all the corruption from Brexit he won't be charged but doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Mrs x
It's amazing that you know what formula was reworked, no one else seems to.
I guess continuing this conversation is kinda pointless seeing as we're now so far off the topic, and likely will just go backwards and forwards without agreeing. Just watch the video or don't,Mrs x
I've watched the video and read the press afterwards.
No one knows (apart from you) which formulae were changed. Well you haven't read enough then, have you. I'm going to post some actual copy from a report by the BBC which shows that that the scheme was altered in the second round. It states whether this was fair or not, it wasn't by the way.
It also touches on the infamous 'formula' and how it was changed. It then goes to show the impact of the change and whether this was fair.
You seem to be very obtuse today, waning to know the exact details of this formula. You cannot deny this was done, Sunak was recorded saying he did it.
Then it goes a little weird. Instead of asking why it was done, you just want the details of the formula, nothing is going to be okay for you until you get this.
It's like defending the actions of a man, who admits stabbing someone but did so after changing the knife. It's only important that you know what knife he was going to use and what he swapped it with. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the guy admitted what he done, how he done it but you have to have the knife and the details of the knife he was going to use before you can move on.
Not very logical approach is it?
So Sunak said he misappropriation they money. He had to change a 'formula' to be able to do it. So he did and then redistributed the funds. He even said it was purely down to him. So he took money allocated by the Government for a group of people, had to change a 'formula', rules, recipe, whatever, which he did, to be able to do so. He then gave this allocated money to another group.
This is classic fraud. It's never been his money to do with as he sees fit. He had to change the system to do this and then he did this without Government backing.
In fact fellow Tories criticised him at the time for doing this and claimed he only did this to increase his chances of election to PM when going up against Truss.
He stole money from the deprived to give to the rich, rich Tory voters.
From a BBC website I cannot quote because I recieved a ban last time...
'How fair is the process?
Areas were invited to bid for investment in transport, cultural, town centre and regeneration projects.
Local MPs were allowed to give their formal support to two bids before the proposals were judged by officials from the Treasury, Levelling Up Department and Department for Transport.
Assessing how fair this is, is not straightforward. Some projects - such as transport - may spread across several constituencies, represented by MPs from different parties.
For the projects that can be allocated to a single party, we can say that more money was allocated to Conservative constituencies than to Labour ones. But there are significantly more Conservative ones.
BBC analysis of the second round of funding found:
52% of successful bids that can be allocated to a party were in Conservative constituencies (the Conservatives won 56% of seats in the Commons in 2019)
24% of them were in Labour areas (Labour won 31% of the seats in 2019)
Projects in Tory constituencies were awarded a total of £1.21bn, compared with £471m in Labour ones.
There was one successful bid in a Lib Dem constituency, seven for the SNP, five for the DUP, three for Sinn Fein, and one each for the Alliance Party and Plaid Cymru.
Areas have also been competing for money under the government's Towns Fund. In that contest, of the 56 constituencies that won, 47 had Conservative MPs.
A zoo, a park and a pool - who got first round levelling up cash?
Towns Fund: How were the winners chosen?
What about deprived areas?
On the second round of funding, Rishi Sunak said: "two thirds of all the levelling up funding is going to the most deprived parts of our country".
BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
That analysis excludes a small number of awards that were given to areas covering multiple local authorities.
We asked the Levelling Up department about Mr Sunak's claim. It said it was not based on the government's index of multiple deprivation but was instead based on measures involving productivity, employment, vacancy rates, lack of skills and transport links".
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".
As for the criticism from his own party, after seeing the video,...'Conservative MP and Truss ally Jake Berry tweeted: "In public Rishi Sunak claims he wants to level up the North, but here, he boasts about trying to funnel vital investment away from deprived areas? He says one thing and does another."
A source in the rival Liz Truss campaign said: "Levelling up isn't about pitting one area of the country against another, or laying dividing lines between urban v rural, towns v cities.
"It is about unleashing growth and making sure every individual has the chance to thrive. Liz has a plan to create an aspiration nation based on equality of opportunity, and will deliver it in a conservative way."
So even fellow Tories know what he did was wrong.
Jonathon Blake, a BBC Political Commentator summarised Sunaks position after watching the video, he wrote...
'Rishi Sunak's comments appear to fly in the face of recent Conservative rhetoric about levelling up and securing Labour's former "red wall".
Why would the former chancellor be boasting about diverting funding away from deprived urban areas?
In short, because he was in Royal Tunbridge Wells at the time, one of his party's traditional heartlands, speaking to grassroots members.
And while the Conservative party doesn't publish data on its membership, research shows most of them live in the South East of England, and are generally older and relatively wealthy.
Mr Sunak's team insist he was talking about changes to ensure pockets of deprivation in towns and rural areas got the funding they deserved.
His opponents will seize on his comments as not just clumsy, but another example of him appearing to be out of touch'.
So even after all of this I've posted here, even after the magic 'formula' that you seem to suggest I was the only one who knew of its exsistence, has been evidence in the section under "What about Deprived Areas? ". Even what this 'formula' was replaced with is also explained. Even though what happened clearly shows Sunak took money from the poor, gave to his rich supporters in the South East in a blatant attempt to garner their favour, you still won't accept what I'm saying.
Sunak has no honesty or transparency, what he has done has taken millions from those who need it and given it to those that don't.
He stole that money and tried to buy political influence, even other Tories accuse him of this but you will not accept it. You seem to be following dogma and not logic, its all a bit silly Mrs x
It seems that you're saying none of the Tory areas awarded were deprived.
Did you read any of the data in that article?
Again, you accuse me of being obtuse whilst displaying the same sort of behaviour. Stop projecting. I'm not saying anything, the official sources are, I'll quote it again, from the BBC... "
So as you can see Tory areas recieved more claims of Levelling up, they recieved significantly more funds to Level Up and this grew larger in the second round after Sunaks change to his 'formula".". Do what you want with it, i knew you would. Mrs x
Were those areas which received more funding deprived or not?
Or maybe you don't know?
I know there was a massive 12% drop in awards to the most deprived area in the year after the formula was changed.... BBC analysis shows that using the government's index of multiple deprivation, which is the usual measure, in the second round about 57% of England's funding went to the areas with the highest deprivation, down from 69% in the first round.
Sunak was boasting about diverting money from deprived areas. BBC correspondent confirms this as do Tory MPs castigated Sunak for what he did, if you don't believe me listen to them, Mrs x
So the most deprived areas still received the most funding?
As I said earlier, we all deserve funding, my mind won't be changed on that. Not from a Levelling Up programme we don't.
That is like saying a programme for disabled children to encourage participation in sport should also be given to Gifted Public Schools Athletes. It for a specific purpose, here for disabled kids, and for Levelling Up its for deprived areas.
But don't worry Sunak sorted that out for you. Regular Robin Hood except he steals from the poor and gives to the rich, Mrs x
Where is the evidence Sunak steals from the poor"Just read whatvive posted,it's in there, Mrs x | |||
| |||
