I Will Deal With It

There was an awful lot of criticism of the gov. when they were talking about means testing for the winter fuel allowance and the so called dementia tax. They have since changed their minds so I'm wondering why these changes are being used as a stick to beat them with, rather than being gratefully received.

"I'll deal with it" is certainly open to interpretation and for me, gives the distinct impression that what ever 'it' is referring too will be dealt with. Where as 'I'll look into this and see what can be done" IMO would have been a more honest and sensible response to the issue.

I still think Theresa May and the Conservatives have made many more promises that they have now disowned - in an official form in their Manifesto. Why does the main stream media obsess about Corbyn and the Labour Party making a minor slip (including Diane Abbott's) but fails to attack Theresa May about major u-turns and downright lies? And as for Boris Johnson's many faux pas, where do I start?
Hypocrisy.

I know I'm repeating myself here but why is there this need to attack TM and the gov. when 2 very unpopular decisions are overturned?

What would some of the posters on this thread prefer, that the so called dementia tax and the means testing for winter fuel allowance be implemented, rather than the gov. listening and doing a 'major u-turn', knowing the delight that would be taken in criticising them for a 'major u-turn' and lying to the electorate?

Theresa May repeatedly and explicitly ruled out a snap general election in the months before calling one.
And 9 more u-turns from the financial times: www.ft.com/content/e021c208-3ede-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2
Yes most people welcome the Dementia Tax u-turn (although it was mainly removed because it would have been electoral suicide). I'm sure I don't need to remind everyone that TM was a Remainer before the referendum. Flip flopping her way through her Leadership. Not strong and stable.

What we would prefer is a balanced approach to TM and JC, rather than focussing on his 'fake promises'.

I would like to add, how come it's OK for TM to have wanted another vote on fox hunting, which had already been made illegal by democratic vote, because that's what she wants; whereas a second vote on Brexit is 'undemocratic'. Double standards or what?

It feels like a balanced approach to JC is never criticising. As soon as you do, this is the thread you get. We're not talking about TM on this thread - there are other threads for that.

But there isn't going to be another vote on fox hunting is there. To have had another vote on fox hunting and not another vote for Brexit would have been double standards.

It might be more truthful to say that TM was a remainer before the referendum vote was announced and DC broke his promise to remain PM regardless of the result. Whose to say that she's no longer a remainer but unlike her predecessor has stepped up to the plate to do what's best for the country.

Some just can't give her any credit because they don't like her and the party she represents no matter what she does, while finding no fault whatsoever with JC because they do like him and the party he represents. This is why we can't have a balanced approach devongirl.

No we are asking that you criticise with a reasoned argument about what has actually been said. Primrose65. You keep saying you don't understand what he means by "I will deal with it". So your only real criticism is that he hasn't been clear and as has already been pointed out that is because the situation is unclear. But carry on criticising and trying to make out something else has been said, all it proves is that you are unable for some reason to understand a simple statement or the explanation of what it meant, but choose to go off on some fantasy of your own. Enjoy yourself but don't expect us all to follow.

I am not sure she said she " wanted another vote" on foxhunting. My memory is of her being reported as saying that she was open to considering foxhunting. That was probably when she was in the company of people who hunted, and she wouldn't be likely to close the door completely on their vote by answering that she wasn't going to even consider it.

smileless: the conservative manifesto said "We will grant a free vote on a government bill in government time to give parliament the opportunity to decide the future of the Hunting Act".

We're not having another vote because it was one of the proposals which was dropped after the election.

"open to considering" is even less specific a promise than "I will deal with it"

Yes, another proposal dropped after the election just as the proposals regarding the dementia tax and winter fuel allowance were dropped but heaven forbid that those opposed to those proposals would simply be grateful that they've been dropped.

On the contrary, I'm delighted they've been dropped!! As I'm sure are many other GNers.

A free vote will be given to MPs on a government bill in government time to repeal the Hunting Act.

Conservative manifesto.

Primrose, the OP asked what we understood "I will deal with ..." to mean. It is clear that some of you have chosen (wrongly in my opinion, but that point's already been argued to death) to interpret it as "I will do ... ", and are highly critical of Corbyn because of it. On that basis, I really can't see why it is wrong to use this thread to compare that interpretation with the many unequivocal "I will / will not do... " statements made by TM or any other party leader that have proved untrue.

And even after all that, Labour lost the election. I agree the Tory manifesto seemed to be designed to put off as many people as possible from voting Tory. Even with that gift, Labour lost.
That's one reason I'm unhappy with JC.

Labour did quite well considering they were supposed to lose lots of seats and Corbyn was going to be booted out. Now the MPs who supported that are crawling to him for jobs on the front bench.

You can think what you like Primrose and so can everybody else. People of different political persuasions tend to interpret differently the words of the politicians they like/dislike.

Speaking as a Labour supporter, I am inclined to think Corbyn and his team are more likely to strive for the rights of the average person than Conservative politicians so that naturally affects my views as to who I believe is more sincere in their efforts to improve the lot of the average person.

Smileless I believe that political commentators are widely of the view that the reason the government has abandoned the dementia tax and fuel allowance proposals is because they know they would not win a vote on it in the House of Commons - additionally they have become aware that they cannot afford to alienate their core voters - the over 60's. If the Conservatives and their supporters are trying to push the idea that the party has changed its position because it is responding to the wishes of the people, it is natural that opposition parties will point out other reasons for this about-turn.

Smileless it is expedient for the Conservatives to drop these policies now but, should they be returned to power with an overall majority in the next election, there is nothing to stop them reinstating them again. People may well be relieved that these policies are not going ahead but it is natural - and I think right - that opposition parties and their supporters express their cynicism re the abandonment of these policies.

I agree Eloethan but why does "point(ing) out other reasons for this about-turn" have to be viewed by the opposition as a u-turn which in political rhetoric is a negative, when the about-turn for those who disagreed with the proposals is a positive?

Erm - because that's the side we're on, Smileless.
I am sure if we said we felt sorry for Tories having to scrap so many policies we'd be accused of being patronising.

Regarding primroses statement about Imran Hussein.

skwawkbox.org/2017/07/25/tories-latest-studentdebt-attempt-is-frankly-embarrassing-for-them/

Read it and try to take it all in, primrose.

Smileless The Labour Party did not support the Conservative policies on the fuel allowance and the dementia tax. The fact that they have been abandoned now does not mean they cannot be resurrected - because the intention was to bring them in and it was only thwarted because they didn't get an overall majority - and my understanding is that the DUP wouldn't support the Conservatives on this. It doesn't signal a genuine change of heart so why should opposition parties and supporters give the Conservatives credit for their actions?

I wonder if Labour will call an opposition day debate on abolishing student fees when parliament returns. It sounds like a clever thing to do to me.

Has anyone seen the tweet Alan Sugar has sent to Corbyn
"I think you should step down and let someone else rescue the Labour Party.
You got votes with false promises"