The Government today were expressing faux- paus outrage that someone dared to raise an example of people they wanted to give the franchise to. If the Government don’t want to be attacked for giving rapists and terrorists the vote, they could perhaps not propose that policy?
The Prime Minister would have us all ignore reality and wish for people to debate in the “abstract” – so his disgusting stance would not be exposed for what it is. The Prime Minister thinks Michael Roberts should vote, so it is, of course, incumbent on him to justify precisely why criminals like him should be allowed to vote. It is a fairly common theme for people to raise notorious killers and offenders in a debate like this. Whenever someone attacked Osama Bin Laden, they didn’t need permission from the countless people he killed.
Whilst it may suit the Prime Minister and his radical socialist colleagues to deflect and express faux outrage, we must ignore it and continue to highlight the kind of people they want to give the vote to. A common theme with this Government is continual deflection; somehow, it is the Libertarian Party at fault for researching and exposing the kind of people the Government wants to give the franchise to.
When discussing policy, it is proper practice to use examples and names. The Government may whine and whinge, but we must remember it is them who want Michael Roberts to vote and affect laws. It is impossible to obtain the permission of those who have been murdered and it is not without precedent to attack serial killers and debate specific and infamous cases under the law. There was a debate about counter-terrorism measures after the Manchester bomber had been allowed back into the United Kingdom after travelling to Libya: nobody needed to seek the victims families permission to discuss areas where our terrorism laws could be strengthened. It was fair to examine this case and look into how to prevent it ever again.
There are multiple infamous crimes and criminals that I am sure everyone in the United Kingdom has a view on and I’m confident they probably don’t want the most heinous individuals in the country voting and affecting our laws.
We will continue to attack the Government and raise relevant examples. Nobody’s personal lives were brought into this matter; we are simply highlighting to the British public the type of person the Government wants to be allowed to vote, and what atrocities said people are guilty of. Instead of deflecting, it is high time the Government looked victims straight in the face and told them why they think these monsters should form part of the process of making our laws.
The Chancellor is once again resorting to whataboutery around calais. It is important to point out new X-ray and infrared technology will cost in the millions. In comparison to the full government budget the Chancellor is looking around for trivial sums to try to create a gotcha moment over his £5 billion blackhole.
If need be the additional expenditure can be retroactively corrected like the VAT error was. The statement in question did not claim no new funding would be needed and nor did it claim it could be done for free within the department. We’re not here to talk about Calais and the fact the Chancellor is still choosing to deflect and say “no but u” sums up his attitude to his job.
The Chancellor’s central claim of the budget being £100 billion for Schools and only the Education budget only being £60 billion in 2014 remain false. This has already been sourced and this assumption that the Chancellor told the House that his spending decision was made has gone unaddressed and is wrong. This claim has been sourced previously and the Chancellor has not chosen to address this.
Increases to the pupil premium are not capital expenditure. It is a permanent increase which requires day-to-day funding.
Sen and EHC funding per pupil eligible being boosted is also a permanent boost which is not capital expenditure.
The Chancellor repeatedly talks about capital spending. However what was announced is not capital spending, so this means that the Chancellor is cutting capital expenditure for our education. He is funding day-to-day expenditure by slashing capital budgets so unless the funds are to be replaced they’d stop this capital spending indefinitely.
No one is claiming capital projects are done in perpetuity however the decision to cut capital budgets could very well jeopardise ongoing projects such as the construction of schools and leave the Department underfunded to fund genuine one-off initiatives.
The figures that the Chancellor has provided for the Institute of government shows capital expenditure across the whole government, not just the Department for Education and what it demonstrates is that even if the Chancellor could utilise money underspent across the whole government he would still barely cover the costs of these new programmes which are structural programmes.
There are not billions underspent in the Department of Education. Underspending is normal as departments face sanctions if they over spend. Unspent capital expenditure is carried forward to the next year’s capital budget and in the Department of Education this will only be millions of pounds in terms of the Education budget. Examples of underspending include academy schools not using their full budget however this money remains with the School.
The Chancellor himself admitted that carrying forward underspending would “prevent the accumulation of spending power over time”. If the Chancellor believes there was underspending specifically in the Education Department last year he should inform the House as to what this spending was, how much and if it will pay for the programmes announced. Underspending is not guaranteed but is something that can happen for an array of reasons.
The Chancellor’s very own Institute for Fiscal Studies report states the following:
Education spending turned out relatively close to plan over the period, showing neither a tendency to persistently undershoot nor overshoot plans between 1999−00 and 2010−11
Dismantling his claim. The Chancellor has shifted from there being lots of spare funds to underspent money to justify his claims. This isn’t a difficult issue and he is trying to confuse people and pull the wool over their eyes. He can not create money from thin air and such I will be voting contempt in the Chancellor when the motion is read later today.
This article was written by the Right Honourable /u/Friedmanite19 OM KCMG KBE CT LVO PC MP, The Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition