| Author | Topic: Howard's hypocrisy (Read 467 times) |
alterego New Member
 member is offline
Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 4
|  | Howard's hypocrisy « Thread Started on Nov 29, 2003, 9:13am » | |
He really does take the biscuit for sanctimonious hypocrisy. Does Michael Howard think no one will remember what he tried to do in 1996?
He withdrew all benefits from asylum seekers, leaving families with children absolutely destitute. This was challenged in the courts and found to be contrary to the National Assistance Act and illegal.
What David Blunkett is trying to do is to speed up the decision process, and where appeals fail, offer a free transport and resettlement package and, only if that is refused, withdraw benefits. What then happens to the children?
What would Howard do? Allow those whose appeals have been refused to continue to live in the UK on benefits? Stop benefits and leave children destitute like he tried to do in 1996?
| |
|
Nothing Global Moderator
     member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/Aleilisth/happeh.gif)
Spawn of Labour
Joined: Oct 2003 Gender: Female  Posts: 7 Location: Canterbury, England
|  | Re: Howard's hypocrisy « Reply #1 on Apr 8, 2005, 10:37am » | |
Funny how things don't change, isn't it? My boyfriend bought one of those horrible tabloid things the other day on a whim, and I wanted to yell at the paper editors for getting half their facts wrong concerning all these things.
And what's with him blaming Labour for MRSA increase when it was a) something that started to spread in Tory years and rose (I believe) 15%, whereas it rose only a further 10% (roughly) in Labour years and has been panning out, etc? Grah. </rant>
| ~N |
| |
|