Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

This is a disingenuous thing to say, so if you’re going to use that smiley, take it back, the Government at the time, that’s David Cameron’s, didn’t have a campaign as such, but it did influence a Remain Stance.

The former PM, Cameron and Cabinet ministers each went their own way, either to the Remain Camp, or to the Leave one. David Cameron was a strong Remainer, so it was obvious, the Government was more Remainer leaning.

It was said plenty of times, before the Referendum that a vote to leave meant exactly out, Cameron used such language and crucially, it was stipulated that we’d be leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.

I know some of you hardline Remainers want to keep rehashing the same tiresome arguments over and over again about the Brexit vote, we are not doing this, so we will get back to the main aspect of this topic, which is the forthcoming General Election.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I still think the British format of Election Debates have it all wrong, audience members asking questions. It should be a full on debate with each leader engaging in debate with the other about each of their policies. I am no fan of Jo Swinson, leader of Lib Dems but I found it odd, not one Lib Dem asked any questions, same with Johnson, the audience seemed to be weighted in big favour for Jeremy Corbyn and this is why debates should be focused on the leaders only.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Fiona Bruce constantly interrupted Johnson,and glanced down at her prompt sheets to answer the pre loaded questions given in advance to the audience, corbyn had nothing in his arsenal apart from the 1970's comeback tour,the audience was full of Scots nats and lefties, swinson died on her feet i felt embarrassed for her, we nippy just spouted the same drvell she gives at every tv appearance.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I would not have described it thus.

I think all the politicians performed extremely well, although I warmed only to one of them. However, the audience gave Corbyn and Swinson a particulary hard time. Sturgeon had an easier ride. Johnson kind of won the audience over a bit and lightened up the proceedings. The audience ultimately warmed to him and hostilities were mitigated.

One thing that was clear was that the audience considered Corbyn a clear and present danger in terms of our well being, and that reassures me that Boris is likely to romp home.

Corbyn's sinister invitation to step outside for a conversation to a member of the audience on his serious concerns about a Corbyn government told me all I needed to know!

I think it is pretty clear that whatever political view anyone has on these forums, Marxist Communism does not really tick any boxes.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

What amazes me is that there are not more posts on how the leaders performed in the Question Time Leaders’ debates. Is this because our left wing friends are embarrassed about what Corbyn has exposed to the world?

No wonder they are trying so hard to discredit Boris! He’s the only one who spoke any sense!

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Just when you thought Labour are getting free and easy with other people's money. They were just getting warmed up.

Link

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Maybe its because you're living in a bubble old chap? There aren't more posts because Boris didn't do very well. No wonder he's refused to do the C4 one, the less is is exposed for his lies the better it seems.

---------- Post added at 07:51 ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 ----------

If only women didn't have a vote ;)

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

If only there was equality and men would be compensated for having to have worked for an extra 5 years, or simply for the extra 1 or 2 years.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...e955fb2ea22509

(Shareable link from the Sunday Times, so hopefully will be readable to non subscribers)

Not going to raise taxes, but spending more money...

---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ----------

If only women didn’t have to take time off work to continue the human race...

(I actually agree with the equalisation of pension ages, just not how it was done)

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Yes equality all round is a good thing. Equal opportunities for rich/poor, closing of the North/South and young/old divides, Glad you're coming on board; always had you down as a closet socialist, you don't fool me ;)

---------- Post added at 09:31 ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 ----------

Pot holes, a key Tory priority ! There were less pot holes under Labour....

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I don't think anyone really agrees (Old Boy will no doubt surprise us here) with how the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition changed the rules in 2011 giving just three years notice to some of those affected.

Considering the original increase had a fifteen year lead-in period it isn't really adequate time for some of those preparing. That said, it isn't just women who are affected here men who prepared to retire at 65 in this decade found the increase from 65 to 66. While not being hit the same way as women these short notice changes are costing men thousands.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Its that convenient magic money tree making a guest reappearance again...

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Looks very much like it unless you've got a long term non terminal illness that requires frequent hospital visits - then you're fair game to be squeezed for every penny they can get out of you. I reckon this 'oversight' could be Borris' dementia tax moment.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

What has women having babies got to do with it? If anything as I understand it, they now have (1 or 2) extra years to fill in any gaps.


You either equalize them or you don't. You can't exactly say you're going to equalize them in 50 years time. They would still complain they didn't have enough notice.

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------

Men got exactly the same notice of the extra changes as women did.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I said some men are affected, but the leap isn’t the same or compounding the original state pension age increases announced in 1995.

I don’t think any reasonable person would accept your notion “you either equalise them or you don’t” without any lead in period. We ask people to make responsible financial plans for their retirement - the Government shouldn’t pull the rug from under these to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds at two or three years notice given a 40 odd year working career.

It also creates an anomaly where those who are responsible and retire early get penalised for the period and those on benefits continue to trouser taxpayers money in the interim with minimal effect.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

They've had over 20 years notice of the equalization. How much more of a lead in period do they want? With the scrapping of retirement at 60/65, they have extra years to earn money for whatever they class as "responsible financial plans".

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

The change to 66 in this decade was not notified in the 1990s so please don’t lie to the forum. That was the Pensions Act 2011.

I don’t think anyone in work would consider the having to delay their retirement plans and work longer to afford retirement as a good opportunity. Indeed, they always had that option, even when claiming the state pension.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

By two whole years.


What plans did they have, and how does it have anything to do with possibly having looked after kids?

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

'Equality for Women' is being thrown about all over the place, they want this, that, and the other so they're equal with their male colleagues . .

well tough, now you've got it so shut up and keep on working like your equal men do :p




oh, and while I'm at it, where's the male 12 months maternity leave with pay?

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I never brought kids into it. I’m not a WASPI woman, so I’m not going to speak on the financial planning they had or with their partners. However if I’d worked for 40 years and made plans to retire in my late 50s or early 60s I’d be more than slightly miffed if the Government at two or three years notice I wasn’t going to get a five figure sum I’d factored into my calculations.

At that point, having made adequate plans, I’d not qualify for any benefits. While those who don’t work continue to have their lifestyles bankrolled by the state up to the new retirement age. A figure that’s an entirely notional point for them in any case.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Perhaps the football players in the National League would like pay parity with Premiership? After all they do the same job. Then and only then, could women players seek pay parity with the men.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. As always you deploy a distraction when your points begin floundering.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

The state pension age was already set to be 65. All that was changed was the changeover to 66/67 was brought forward a bit. If you wouldn't qualify for benefits at 65, you now have those extra couple of years to fill in any NI gaps.


I don't quite see how the cost of this sexist freebie costs almost twice as much as if the changes had never been made, £58bn vs £30bn.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

But not 66 as you concede.

Thousands of pounds.

People who make proper financial plans for their retirement generally don’t run around in the final year or two plugging gaps. An irrelevance too it really.

“A sexist freebie” ha ha ha. I’m sure the households who would benefit to the tune of thousands won’t care for the distinction. The Government pulled the rug from under them at short notice.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Whan you produce a baby from your body, I’m sure you’ll get that... ;)

btw, Statutory Maternity Pay is for (up to) 39 weeks.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I didn't specify 66, for a reason. I said "equalisation", which is correct.


Define "proper plans".

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

And equalisation was 65 by April 2020 in the 1995-2011 period.

If you need me to the various mechanisms that households can use to budget for retirement (savings, ISAs, private pensions, etc) or how the Government legislating to remove tens of thousands from your projected income changes those then the discussion is obviously beyond you.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

ooooh sexist remark :D


edit: apologies for being 'slightly' off topic - equality etc

actually that got me thinking, if two (gay, homosexual, whatever) married men adopt a baby . . which one (if either) are eligible for the maternity leave?

curious yet can't be bothered to go digging ;)

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

There is adoption leave, for all couples (and any single people who adopt).

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

All bases covered then, thanks Hugh :)

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

BJ July 24th - https://www.homecare.co.uk/news/arti...ce-and-for-all

Today I thought he had a "clear plan which he had prepared"?

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Not like Johnson to make contradictory statements.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Is that the social care plan that for the last 20 years that has been kicked into the long grass by successive governments.

---------- Post added at 17:25 ---------- Previous post was at 17:19 ----------

Heres another one which is Boris Johnson's pledge for 50,000 new nurses which is not quite what it seems.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9215811.html

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Sorry but I’m struggling to see the problem.

The pledge the Tories have made is 50,000 *more*, not 50,000 *new*. They haven’t said “new”. They have said they believe they can retain, or re-recruit about 18,000 of that number, which is an entirely sensible aim given that in all those cases those nurses will be trained and familiar with NHS practices.

There are tried and tested HR strategies for improving staff retention that are used by employers across all sectors of our economy. I don’t understand why what is considered a desirable and efficient use of resources literally everywhere else, is suddenly duplicitous when pledged of the NHS.

But then, as I’ve observed before, people will see what they want to see.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Here is a good analysis of how neutral the BBC aren’t, in respect of the question time debate.

The stat about how many times the leaders were interrupted by the host is telling.

Let alone the Labour plant in the audience.

https://youtu.be/0-6aIBsyaKg

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

But you're fine with Ryan Jacobsz the Tory activist, who slated Corbyn, who was on his 4th QT appearance.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Keep shaking that tree.

https://news.sky.com/story/general-e...16328-11869522

The sad thing is, they call this revolutionary, changing the landscape of U.K. economics.......

No, what this is, is a massive mill stone around our kids necks, this is sbj Congress our kids do not only to the problems of climate change, but also will leave them so Skint they can do sod all about it.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

see your tory rose tinted glasses are welded on forever he was a baffling wreck only jo swinson car crash was on par like I always said this country is totally screwed worse choice in uk history

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Like anybody with rose tinted glasses on they only see what they want to see...

Even though l don't agree with her politically Nicola Sturgeon came out by far the best looking more a politician then any of the others , Johnson and Corbyn were average at best evading any any difficult questions while Swinson had a real mare.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

It isn't that telling because it depends on what the leaders were doing to be interrupted. Johnson would frequently go over the time limit for example.

The BBC gets it all the time because the country has gone mad and thinks everyone else is biased. Labour are flipping their lid because the BBC edited laughs out of Boris' answer for the news summary but that's because they were trying to show one clip from each leader saying something and if they had left the laugh in it would have been biased against Johnson.

They cannot win.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Meanwhile as predicted, the NHS is collapsing as more EU staff leave due to Brexit.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Nobody in Sheffield really knows what Sturgeon wants; they don’t consider her especially relevant and they don’t know her record in order to challenge her. She doesn’t even sit in Westminster for the SNP. It’s hardly surprising that she wasn’t subjected to the kind of scrutiny the other three were. That being the case, it’s unsurprising that she was allowed to look assured.

You may be assured that while she may win the plurality of votes in Scotland, and due to the distribution of those votes in the Westminster voting system she will win a vast majority of the seats, she will not do nearly as well as she will then claim she has.

Also bear in mind that Westminster voting in Scotland is like Northern Ireland at the moment. It splits for the most part on the constitutional issue. The SNP is currently polling around 40%, which is shocking considering how we’re always being told that Boris and the Tories in government are driving Scotland towards independence.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Nobody cares until it affects them or their families I'm afraid. At some point, it will do.

Boris is promising 50,000 new nurses, and 6000 GPs where on earth does he think they are coming from ? The EU? There are already 39,000 nursing vacancies increasing all the time, as the exodus continues. GPs take 10 years to train.

It's one of his bigger lies that will be forgotten about next month. Nobody seems to care about lies either,
accepted as the norm, depressing state of affairs.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

£58bn out of nowhere and uncosted in the manifesto is crazy to me. I think Labour already had a credibility problem with their spending commitments that to come out and promise such a spending proposal seems counterproductive.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

It's quite deliberate. Corbyn and McDonnell are determined to bring down capitalism, so they don't care about grossly overspending. McDonnell has actually said that he is not concerned about the money for Labour's policies running out because they will just print more money.

Of course, this will be disastrous for all of us and everybody, including the poor, will wind up worse off.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I think they're lying personally, a desperate ploy to change the polls. I don't see how what they're suggesting is possible. I don't think it's part of a plan to bring down capitalism because they won't be able to do it, all that would happen is the country becomes a basket case until they're brought down and their entire life project fails.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

And Boris' extra spending on police/NHS plus tax cuts, it doesn't add up either. Both parties should be held accountable for uncosted pledges, not just one. Credibility is not something Bozza wins on.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

We had the same type of pledges from both main political parties in their manifesto's at the last election but quelle surprise most of those pledges were ditched after the election stealthfully of course...

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

David Gauke, our outgoing Conservative MP who is now standing as a independent for SW Herts posted this rather marvellous campaigning tweet yesterday - https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/statu...97894964060160

Watch to the end...

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

It will be interesting how voter disillusionment plays out on election night with both main parties and then there is also the tactical voting element and how that is going to play out as well.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Adds up more than Labour's policies, the Tories aren't committing nearly as much money. Incidentally it's not so much the extra spending that's the issue, we should spend more on the NHS IMO, but the lack of proposals on where the money is coming from.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Massive extra spending and tax cuts doesn't add up at all.

It's a twisted logic that says you'll accept lies so long as they aren't lieing as much ? :confused:

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Well I am not voting for either so not really a contradiction. Lib Dems lie as well but hell, got to vote for someone.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

“Massive extra spending” ... right ...

Have a look at this:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1574683366

From here:

https://news.sky.com/story/general-e...16328-11869522

Labour’s spending commitments are 28 times greater than the Tories. The Tories are making relativity modest changes to the existing economic model; Labour are attempting to completely change the model.

There is an enormous credibility gap between the two and simply on the basis of better the devil you know, a lot of people will stick with the plan that is manifestly less risky.

If Labour doesn’t understand that the onus is on them to defend their commitments, much more so than the Tories, they’re not fit to put those plans into place.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Can you reference the page in the Labour manifesto where there's a commitment to bring down capitalism?

As far as I can see they seek state intervention where no genuine market exists.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Any chance we can shrink that image/screen grab Chris ? :D

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Sorry ... never quite worked out how to do that effectively on an iPad ...

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

A bit sensationalist don't you think? If Labour were planning to spend 28 times more than the Conservatives (as you are trying to imply) then the figure would be in the region of £23 trillion (as the current UK government spending is ~£820 billion to £825 billion). I think what your trying to say is the that the Labour proposed increases in annual spending are 28 times that of the Conservatives, which is quite different.

If you put up a graph of total spending as a percentage of GDP then the numbers would be much closer but then you probably know that.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

In response to a comment by Mr K who was discussing “extra spending”, I think the context of my reply, and the graph, is perfectly clear ... but then I think you probably know that.

We already have a pretty good idea of the sustainability of current spending. What’s critical here is how far the pledges being made in this campaign will push beyond what we presently know to be sustainable.

The question is, how far are the parties diverging from one another and from the baseline of the current budget. The graph is pretty stark and effective I believe. Labour’s manifesto commitments are 28 times greater than the Tories. Fact.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

One problem is that if it's you or your child/parent/friend that needs something the party promising to deliver that (soonest) may get your vote even if long term it's less good.

The NHS would swallow even all the Labour extra funding and still need more for something. The clinical/technical (even facility) staff do work hard and often efficiently but the finance/managerial side and other sheer wastage is incredible. Not helped by models that promote good workers to management where they may not be best suited.
Some of the wastage is being tied to inefficient supply contracts and the like that may be negotiated nationally that could be done better locally. (This would be non-clinical type stuff, that does need all sorts of checks.)

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

you are forgetting the tories made the poor lot poorer since they been in the gap never been bigger between rich and poor

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Yes, poor people have got so much poorer. They’ve all had their colour TVs confiscated, their central heating has been ripped out and they’ve all been given a bag of coal a week to get by on.

Next week they’re having their bathrooms ripped out and they’ll be getting a brick privy in the back garden to share, one between 10.

:dozey:

Is there even the slightest chance you could contextualise your claim that “the tories made the poor lot poorer” (sic)? Do you even understand the difference between absolute and relative poverty, and the difference in social effects it causes?

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

You are forgetting that austerity was necessary due to Labour's mismanagement of the economy. You have a very short memory, Dave!

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

tory propaganda just like the 50,000 extra nurses that piers and susanna debunked this morning

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Come off it, Mr K! Boris's pledges are trifling compared with Labour's.

Is this an admission on your part that Labour's manifesto is undeliverable?

---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

It's not in the manifesto, it's what they've already said. They are both Marxists, remember?

This country will never embrace Communism, and that's why these two dangerous lunatics will not win the election.

In fact, the opinion polls are probably showing Labour in a better light than is justified. I would wager that many who say they will vote Labour will get cold feet and not vote at all. Most people do understand the danger that the Marx brothers pose to this country. You need to catch up, jfman, and stop defending the indefensible.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

One thing i noticed as an overpaid engineer was poor people always had a better tv than me.
And might i add i still get by on a bag of coal a week;)

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

How is it propaganda? Labour admitted there was no money left as they departed No 10. They spent our entire reserves on their vanity projects and handouts. You can deny it all you like, but you are fooling nobody. The only reason the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Conservatives was because they knew they had to do this in the national interest and rescue the economy.

The spending plans Labour have in their manifesto, plus the Waspi women 'compensation' package is all the evidence you need that Labour have not learned a thing. The austerity that would have to be imposed if we let these losers in would put the austerity we have already suffered well into the shade.

People are turning away from Labour in droves because they don't want a future for themselves or their children which involves queuing up for bread and going without essential medicines. Spending money on the scale proposed by Labour will have devastating outcomes for this country. You need to wake up from your Utopian dreams and smell the coffee, mate.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Guess what, I’m still voting for the Tories. You have to be utterly crazy voting for a socialist and Marxist government, your claim of people getting poorer, will be increased tenfold under Labour, not to mention you’d be voting for a terrorist loving & commie set of pricks, aka Corbyn and McDonnell.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

l won't be voting Labour but l won't be voting Tory either.

l won't be defending the indefensible so l hope you won't as lets move on to good old Boris and see how much of that you think is defensible?.

Boris Johnson called Commonwealth citizens “piccaninnies” and “watermelons” , Is that defensible?.

Boris Johnson said Britain should be “in charge” of Africa again , Is that defensible?.

Boris Johnson stated that “orientals” had “have larger brains and higher IQ scores”, while “blacks are at the other pole”. Is that defensible?.

Boris Johnson also stated that Muslim women were “bank robbers” , Is that defensible?.

Boris Johnson Johnson’s ministerial record consists of two excruciating years as foreign secretary during which he regularly embarrassed Britain with gaffes, gratuitous insults and carelessness of the sort that ensured Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe remains incarcerated in Tehran , Is that defensible?.

Boris Johnson is a serial philanderer with two broken marriages and a love child. He is profoundly untrustworthy and disloyal, as his wives and a succession of Tory leaders can testify , Not a leader just like Corbyn one can trust?.

He was fired by The Times for making up stories , Not great Prime minister material is it?.

Johnson is just as shifty as Corbyn is unacceptable as a future prime minister.

l rest my case.....

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

the propaganda is the lie austerity was a necessity when it was a very blatant political choice both main parties are disastrous I am one of the millions of poltical homeless ones in this country

---------- Post added at 13:34 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

well said Den agree 100% :clap::clap::clap:

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Not much of a case there, sorry Den, I have to totally disagree with you.

This is simply not true - Corbyn is the much more bigger disaster than Johnson could ever be and BJ is already the Prime Minister and hopefully will still be after Dec 13th.

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:40 ----------

You are the one that needs to stop lying, Austerity was needed, it's always needed after a Labour Government that spends like crazy and has no money left, how do you expect services to still be paid for, do you want keep driving up the nations debt and considerably under a Labour Government, huh?

Why don't you stop regurgitating the same ridiculous Corbynista like soundbites and actually answer Chris's point that he asked you above. :rolleyes:

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

There’s no case there Den.

You haven’t provided any links to any sources, credible or otherwise.

This isn’t a case, it’s smears of the kind you seem to love passing your righteous judgment on our politicians for.

I’m not pleading that Boris or anybody else is a saint incidentally. But it’s a very old tactic of the Left to keep repeating a smear until everyone assumes it’s true, and you’ve fallen for it like a mug.

Go on, I dare you, look up the sources for all the things you’ve accused BoJo of. Look at all of it in context and then offer some judgment about what he’s done and how bad it is.

Alternatively just sit safe and smug behind your keyboard and keep on posting acres of meaningless claptrap ....

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

the debt doubled under the tories never ever been higher that's a FACT over 1.8 trillion and still raising

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

:banghead:

So, while you’re off learning about absolute v relative poverty and their differing effects, perhaps you could spend a few minutes reading up on “structural deficit”.

:rolleyes:

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Look Mick we all have our own views politically but personally l don't see either as good leaders of this country but for the voter the choice is not a appetising one wherever one looks so its then up to the individual who to put their cross next to but l suspect quite a lot of voters will be doing so with a heavy heart.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Shut up and empty your chamber pot you dirty old man.

:p:

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

so tory debt is all fine labour one all bad? good to know I guess

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

WRONG!!! - Still lying I see, you need to stop telling utter lies Dave42, getting sick of it reading the same crap from you that simply is not true!

From full fact:

Claim:

Government debt has doubled under the Conservatives.

Conclusion:

Not correct. Public sector net debt, adjusted for inflation, rose by 53% between 2009/10 and 2016/17.

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-...national-debt/

53% increase is not double! :dozey: :dunce:

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Any debt is fine if it is sustainable and generates more growth than the interest charges it attracts. In terms of future spending plans, I think it unlikely that Labour’s £80-plus billion of additional current spending will achieve that.

I suspect I’m casting pearls before swine her though. Have you looked up “structural deficit” yet? Do you understand why the national debt has increased so much between 2010 and 2019?

No, I thought not.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Here is the original article for the 'watermelon smiles' quote: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...tay-there.html

Nothing in the context absolves of him of it imo.

He didn't say the thing about 'blacks being at the other pole'. He published an article in the Spectator from Taki who did.

Can't be bothered to google the rest, although it is common knowledge he was fired from The Times for lying and fired from cabinet for lying about an affair isn't it?

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

If Boris said he farted perfume some on here would believe it or defend his right to lie. Brainwashed or deluded, hard to say.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Yet you let it go over your head that Labour has a £80 Billion+ spending spree that is not fully costed, requires a forest of magic money trees.

You're happy to let it go over your head that Labour is a Marxist movement that would drive the UK to a Venezuela way of living, where not even the rich would be able to afford a cup of coffee.

You're prepared to let it go over your head that Corbyn wants rid of Trident, making Russia very happy.

You say us who wish to vote Tory on here, are deluded, I think you got serious problems if you think Labour is your answer, deluded and brainwashed you say, if the shoe fits, wear it yourself! :rolleyes:

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

And here’s a report of him acknowledging the offence and apologising for it ... in 2006.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...23/london.race

As I said, I’m not beatifying him by any means. I am however demanding context. You may feel that the context of his original remark does not soften them; fair enough. I however feel that the fact the comments are 13 years old and were subsequently apologised is an important piece of context that nobody accusing BoJo seems in any hurry to acknowledge.

I am quite certain that you, and Denphone, would be personally aggrieved if somebody kept repeating errors of judgment you made more than a decade ago, without discussion of context, with the clear intention that other people should judge your character based solely on their list of your past failings regardless of any restorative action you may have taken.

Denphone, it seems to me, is always in a massive hurry to tut and shake his head at the moral vacuity of our political leaders, yet he thinks nothing of engaging in exactly the same morally dubious smears he accuses politicians of. And he is not alone - simply a recent example in this thread.

I could wish that this being a discussion forum, and not a party election leaflet, we could engage with the issues critically rather than just repeating personal attack lines, but it’s a faint hope indeed.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

LAD! :D

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

We need to consider some steps I think here Chris, we cannot keep having wild claims being made without validated citations. I have left this as an idea in the team forum, for us to consider, discuss and implement.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Should be a vote winner

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.e...-manifesto/amp

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Or where the money is going to. There isn't the staff to employ in the first place. If there are unfilled vacancies, then the budget for their wages should already be in place, ie they can already afford it.


Mind you that's nothing to this in the Labour Manifesto.
That adds up to more than 10 million.:D

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I am afraid that you are part of that very problem as indeed we all are. I also wish that what you describe could come to pass but the majority on this forum are more intent of endless games of hyperbole and wind ups. Your recent posts on this thread have been very combative especially your reply to Den yet you then profess to want to rise above all this petty, tribal mud slinging? This seems inconsistent to me.

To be honest, I am tired of this toxic approach. It is not debate in any sense of the word. I have some ideas that I will submit via the appropriate channels but my expectations are low in this regard.

There are a few scenarios that are the major contributors to where we are today:

The Wind Up

Someone decides he wants to comment on a new Labour/Tory/Whoever policy. So what do we not get? A reasoned post, ideally with citations, detailing why this is a dumb idea. What we do get? A post specifically designed to wind up the "other side". Common techniques are the use of pejorative adjectives & descriptions: Marxist Corbyn, Facist Johnson, Nationalisation equals Venezuela, All Leavers are racists, Unions equal 1970's etc. The list goes on and on.

But here is the kicker, these throwaway retorts, designed to wind up and nothing more, keep getting churned out, day after day. Ok, say it once, make your point (?) but move on. The only objective in this continual process is to wind up and antagonise the "opposition" however you might define that.

Of course, those who these remarks are aimed at can do one of 2 things: ignore them or reply in kind. Human nature, as it is, favours the latter. I mean it is like nails down a blackboard, after a while you just lash out. I include myself in this category.

Honesty

Both sides of the debate make mistakes and do things that, when viewed in hindsight, are just wrong. No discussion, just wrong. What we do not see is admission from either side when this is pointed out. When the Tories pretended to be a fact checking site or presented a 6 week old video of Labour MP Jess Phillips, discussing manifestos, as current, who called this out? There are examples for Labour and the LibDems as well, they all have form.

I do see some, notably Sephiroth, calling out his own side but this is rare. I mean, if you are not prepared to accept the bloody obvious, how are you going to be convincing in arguing a case where the merits are far from certain.

Hyperbole

Many people use extreme, exaggerated descriptions of the person or institution that wish to criticise. Again, that may be fine for the first or second time to make an impact, get attention, etc. although I am not convinced on this one. But when this description is used continually, you just end up in this adversarial, tribal playground fight which eventually distills down to just, basically, name calling.

There may be those who just want to sling mud, maybe it makes them feel good who knows but this is not for me. When I react in kind, I may feel validated for a while but after I ask myself, what have I gained? Nothing, it just does your head in after a while ...

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Hmmmm.


https://fullfact.org/economy/did-lab...-modern-times/

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

And the alternative was....:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

Of course it did, because of the deficit. That's why we needed to reduce the deficit. Pay attention, man!

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 17:02 ----------

I think the point Chris was making was that the examples you gave were fluff and nobody really cares about all that. The decision we have to make is about which party will keep us solvent, and on that basis, the Conservatives will romp home.

---------- Post added at 17:07 ---------- Previous post was at 17:04 ----------

The debt results from Labour's deficit. Do you not get that?

The austerity was needed in order to reduce the deficit, thereby prevent the debt from escalating to levels that would be calamatous for this country. Without austerity, the debt would be far more than it is now.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Old Boy, our fag packet economic expert, continuing to peddle his neo-liberal capitalist fantasy.

Austerity wasn’t needed to reduce the deficit (and indeed despite austerity the deficit remains). Recognition was needed that the one off windfalls of privatisation were gone. No more family silver was left to sell. Taxes had to go up to continue paying for public services. It remains as true today as it was in 2010.

Previously, before we decided to allow private companies to extract as much of the state’s wealth as possible and move it offshore, the alternative would have been to invest in our economy. Long needed infrastructure projects would have been paid for and long term benefits for the economy as a whole would have resulted.

To say there was no alternative is absolutely groundless in economics. The government budget isn’t a household budget, however capitalist fantasists have realised this is the easiest sell to a gullible public. You don’t want the state to do that, but if they give us money we will do a Carillion and walk away with billions in the process.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Are you sure you don't mean the family gold sold off at a cut price rate?

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Under the Conservatives or “New” Labour it’s one and the same. I don’t care for the distinction - neither wanted to face up to telling the problem we need to raise more in tax. This raises the question of where that burden should fall.

The few billion lost in the sale of gold is nothing next to the accumulated billions extracted by energy/water/telecoms oligopolies over the years.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I've never voted for either of the main parties Mick. I know you like pigeon holing people in to winners/loser, them/us, but it isn't always that simple. However if if a choice between Johnson and anybody else, i'd vote anybody else.

Corbyn is a genuine socialist (not a Marxist/communist or any of that tabloid crap) - its just shocked people, we haven't had one or a genuine choice for decades.

I just don't see why one party is rightly held to account on costings, and the other is exempt, take your blinkers off. Whether its Brexit or the election we're all on the same side at the end of the day - it won't matter which way you voted if you're waiting for life saving medical treatment - we'd be in the same boat.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

It isn't really my main issue with Boris Johnson. I am just providing the source although I do think people are entitled to hold it against him because, despite his apology, he does have a habit of using inflammatory language to prove a point.

I could give a long list of reasons I don't really trust him but it's sort of pointless since I won't support him because of Brexit. Maybe if he as a Remainer I would be more forgiving, it's hard to tell to degree to which personal bias is in play.