Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who are the IFS? Who pays their wages? Have they got all predictions right?" I was just glad it wasn't IDF going nuclear  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who are the IFS? Who pays their wages? Have they got all predictions right?" fair questions. Answers to first two is on their website. And plenty of transparency. Doubt they get all their predictions right. That's not forecasting works. No idea of better than most either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Summary so far… Tories and Labour….. not worth paper they are written on Lib Dem’s…. Not as bad as others.. some good ideas Green and reform… completely nuts!! If you are watching… this is glorious!!!!! "Not funny since tax rises are definitely on the cards  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who are the IFS? Who pays their wages? Have they got all predictions right?fair questions. Answers to first two is on their website. And plenty of transparency. Doubt they get all their predictions right. That's not forecasting works. No idea of better than most either. " That's the problem of forecasting... its a bit like pissing in the wind, remember all the economic forecasting, voting forecasting, never mind Neil Fergus and the doom whilst snagging away 
I find every organisation with the word independent in its title, is backed by someone behind the scenes getting paid by the highest bidder imho of cause | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They are also not convinced that 5 billion can be raised from cracking down on tax evasion leaving big gaps in finances" 5 billion pays two weeks interest on the national debt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They are also not convinced that 5 billion can be raised from cracking down on tax evasion leaving big gaps in finances 5 billion pays two weeks interest on the national debt. " Indeed but in the case of some parties the money has already been spent on other things regardless of if they raise what they claim or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who are the IFS? Who pays their wages? Have they got all predictions right?fair questions. Answers to first two is on their website. And plenty of transparency. Doubt they get all their predictions right. That's not forecasting works. No idea of better than most either. That's the problem of forecasting... its a bit like pissing in the wind, remember all the economic forecasting, voting forecasting, never mind Neil Fergus and the doom whilst snagging away
I find every organisation with the word independent in its title, is backed by someone behind the scenes getting paid by the highest bidder imho of cause"they publish who has given them money. More transparent than some political parties. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Summary so far… Tories and Labour….. not worth paper they are written on Lib Dem’s…. Not as bad as others.. some good ideas Green and reform… completely nuts!! If you are watching… this is glorious!!!!!
Not funny since tax rises are definitely on the cards "Highest tax rises since 1948 under the tories has made no impact on improving public services, or reducing national debt Race to the bottom | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state that at the current OBR projected increase in the economy (1.8%) that the labour figures would have a 22bn black hole over the 5 year term of the next government…. Still… better than the conservatives… there figures would leave a 38 bn pound black hole….. Still… could be worse… the phrase that they use for the greens and reform were so bad that …… actually… I’ll just put the entire section here! “Reform UK and the Greens offer much bigger numbers still. The policies they outline are not going to be implemented. But the way they suggest that they have radical ideas which can realistically make a positive difference, when in fact what they propose is wholly unattainable, helps to poison the entire political debate” Ouch!!!!! " I don’t think that anyone actually pays any attention to these financial forecasts and analyses. They are invariably wrong, and nobody really believes that any party will particularly do what it pledges before elections anyway. The OBR in particular has a dismal record, and just acts as a straitjacket on any kind of risk taking. It should be shut down but actually cowardly politicians are just going to rely on it more and more as they seek to outsource all decision making to quangos. That way they can shrug their shoulders at the public and just say “sorry ABC policy isn’t working, growth is stagnant, but XYZ signed off our policy and we followed the advice of the expert consensus, don’t blame us”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state that at the current OBR projected increase in the economy (1.8%) that the labour figures would have a 22bn black hole over the 5 year term of the next government…. Still… better than the conservatives… there figures would leave a 38 bn pound black hole….. Still… could be worse… the phrase that they use for the greens and reform were so bad that …… actually… I’ll just put the entire section here! “Reform UK and the Greens offer much bigger numbers still. The policies they outline are not going to be implemented. But the way they suggest that they have radical ideas which can realistically make a positive difference, when in fact what they propose is wholly unattainable, helps to poison the entire political debate” Ouch!!!!! " Starmer stated that nothing in the manifesto would be undertaken unless it met their fiscal rules, which is a balanced budget. This makes their manifesto either meaningless or misleading, as they will not have a balanced budget in their term, or we are going to see huge tax rises and borrowing which he said was not going to happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state that at the current OBR projected increase in the economy (1.8%) that the labour figures would have a 22bn black hole over the 5 year term of the next government…. Still… better than the conservatives… there figures would leave a 38 bn pound black hole….. Still… could be worse… the phrase that they use for the greens and reform were so bad that …… actually… I’ll just put the entire section here! “Reform UK and the Greens offer much bigger numbers still. The policies they outline are not going to be implemented. But the way they suggest that they have radical ideas which can realistically make a positive difference, when in fact what they propose is wholly unattainable, helps to poison the entire political debate” Ouch!!!!! Starmer stated that nothing in the manifesto would be undertaken unless it met their fiscal rules, which is a balanced budget. This makes their manifesto either meaningless or misleading, as they will not have a balanced budget in their term, or we are going to see huge tax rises and borrowing which he said was not going to happen. " Fully costed is what I keep hearing from them yet now the IFS says a massive black hole. Either Labour are being economical with the truth or the IFS are wrong (possibly both). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who are the IFS? Who pays their wages? Have they got all predictions right?fair questions. Answers to first two is on their website. And plenty of transparency. Doubt they get all their predictions right. That's not forecasting works. No idea of better than most either. That's the problem of forecasting... its a bit like pissing in the wind, remember all the economic forecasting, voting forecasting, never mind Neil Fergus and the doom whilst snagging away
I find every organisation with the word independent in its title, is backed by someone behind the scenes getting paid by the highest bidder imho of cause"The IFS are ok then, no ‘independent’ in their name. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The single biggest problem with party manifestoes is that they cannot predict the future. Nobody knows what the world economic outlook is going to be over the next five year period and whether that will drive growth or retraction. The former drives tax receipts the latter doesn’t and could lead to tax rises or more borrowing. Few, if any, politicians are being honest or brave enough to say it as it is. Mostly because it would appear a large chunk of the public has the attention span of a goldfish. It’s all about headlines and getting into power. Then once the bonnet has been properly lifted they can say “ah well we know we promised that but things are worse than we thought so we have to do this”. It would be good if manifestoes were required by law to spell out what they would do under a range of different economic scenarios. ie if this then that but if this then that other thing." That sounds a like a terrible idea. Who would regulate it and what would their prejudices be? If it were a legal requirement would politicians spend their entire term in office bogged down in court processes as pressure groups sue them for the slightest deviation from their manifesto, as per what has happened with May’s idiotic legal entrenchment of Net Zero commitments? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state that at the current OBR projected increase in the economy (1.8%) that the labour figures would have a 22bn black hole over the 5 year term of the next government…. Still… better than the conservatives… there figures would leave a 38 bn pound black hole….. Still… could be worse… the phrase that they use for the greens and reform were so bad that …… actually… I’ll just put the entire section here! “Reform UK and the Greens offer much bigger numbers still. The policies they outline are not going to be implemented. But the way they suggest that they have radical ideas which can realistically make a positive difference, when in fact what they propose is wholly unattainable, helps to poison the entire political debate” Ouch!!!!! Starmer stated that nothing in the manifesto would be undertaken unless it met their fiscal rules, which is a balanced budget. This makes their manifesto either meaningless or misleading, as they will not have a balanced budget in their term, or we are going to see huge tax rises and borrowing which he said was not going to happen. Fully costed is what I keep hearing from them yet now the IFS says a massive black hole. Either Labour are being economical with the truth or the IFS are wrong (possibly both). " See… here is the thing…. 1) why are you just picking on labour… when all the parties are being pulled apart You could argue labour is the “least worst” … but that’s like arguing what’s the least painful way to rip off the plaster!! It’s still going to hurt… What the IFS are all saying is that all the parties, to some degree more than others, are overestimating the amount of revenue they think they can get in using the measures they propose….. And if that is the case something will have to give and some taxes will rise! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The single biggest problem with party manifestoes is that they cannot predict the future. Nobody knows what the world economic outlook is going to be over the next five year period and whether that will drive growth or retraction. The former drives tax receipts the latter doesn’t and could lead to tax rises or more borrowing. Few, if any, politicians are being honest or brave enough to say it as it is. Mostly because it would appear a large chunk of the public has the attention span of a goldfish. It’s all about headlines and getting into power. Then once the bonnet has been properly lifted they can say “ah well we know we promised that but things are worse than we thought so we have to do this”. It would be good if manifestoes were required by law to spell out what they would do under a range of different economic scenarios. ie if this then that but if this then that other thing. That sounds a like a terrible idea. Who would regulate it and what would their prejudices be? If it were a legal requirement would politicians spend their entire term in office bogged down in court processes as pressure groups sue them for the slightest deviation from their manifesto, as per what has happened with May’s idiotic legal entrenchment of Net Zero commitments?" And the idiotic fiscal rules the government has set itself that has essentially meant a continuation of the disastrous austerity policies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state that at the current OBR projected increase in the economy (1.8%) that the labour figures would have a 22bn black hole over the 5 year term of the next government…. Still… better than the conservatives… there figures would leave a 38 bn pound black hole….. Still… could be worse… the phrase that they use for the greens and reform were so bad that …… actually… I’ll just put the entire section here! “Reform UK and the Greens offer much bigger numbers still. The policies they outline are not going to be implemented. But the way they suggest that they have radical ideas which can realistically make a positive difference, when in fact what they propose is wholly unattainable, helps to poison the entire political debate” Ouch!!!!! Starmer stated that nothing in the manifesto would be undertaken unless it met their fiscal rules, which is a balanced budget. This makes their manifesto either meaningless or misleading, as they will not have a balanced budget in their term, or we are going to see huge tax rises and borrowing which he said was not going to happen. Fully costed is what I keep hearing from them yet now the IFS says a massive black hole. Either Labour are being economical with the truth or the IFS are wrong (possibly both). See… here is the thing…. 1) why are you just picking on labour… when all the parties are being pulled apart You could argue labour is the “least worst” … but that’s like arguing what’s the least painful way to rip off the plaster!! It’s still going to hurt… What the IFS are all saying is that all the parties, to some degree more than others, are overestimating the amount of revenue they think they can get in using the measures they propose….. And if that is the case something will have to give and some taxes will rise! " I expect the other parties to be highlights, and hot air, I’m only interested in labour’s manifesto because let’s be honest, Labour will form the next government so their manifesto is the most important amongst the parties. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state that at the current OBR projected increase in the economy (1.8%) that the labour figures would have a 22bn black hole over the 5 year term of the next government…. Still… better than the conservatives… there figures would leave a 38 bn pound black hole….. Still… could be worse… the phrase that they use for the greens and reform were so bad that …… actually… I’ll just put the entire section here! “Reform UK and the Greens offer much bigger numbers still. The policies they outline are not going to be implemented. But the way they suggest that they have radical ideas which can realistically make a positive difference, when in fact what they propose is wholly unattainable, helps to poison the entire political debate” Ouch!!!!! Starmer stated that nothing in the manifesto would be undertaken unless it met their fiscal rules, which is a balanced budget. This makes their manifesto either meaningless or misleading, as they will not have a balanced budget in their term, or we are going to see huge tax rises and borrowing which he said was not going to happen. Fully costed is what I keep hearing from them yet now the IFS says a massive black hole. Either Labour are being economical with the truth or the IFS are wrong (possibly both). See… here is the thing…. 1) why are you just picking on labour… when all the parties are being pulled apart You could argue labour is the “least worst” … but that’s like arguing what’s the least painful way to rip off the plaster!! It’s still going to hurt… What the IFS are all saying is that all the parties, to some degree more than others, are overestimating the amount of revenue they think they can get in using the measures they propose….. And if that is the case something will have to give and some taxes will rise! " As Labour are pretty much nailed on to be the next government is why I chose to mention Labour as only theirs has relevance to the future. Office comes with greater scrutiny and those in office should be held to a high standard. At least that's what used to be said when the Tories were making a mess of things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state that at the current OBR projected increase in the economy (1.8%) that the labour figures would have a 22bn black hole over the 5 year term of the next government…. Still… better than the conservatives… there figures would leave a 38 bn pound black hole….. Still… could be worse… the phrase that they use for the greens and reform were so bad that …… actually… I’ll just put the entire section here! “Reform UK and the Greens offer much bigger numbers still. The policies they outline are not going to be implemented. But the way they suggest that they have radical ideas which can realistically make a positive difference, when in fact what they propose is wholly unattainable, helps to poison the entire political debate” Ouch!!!!! Starmer stated that nothing in the manifesto would be undertaken unless it met their fiscal rules, which is a balanced budget. This makes their manifesto either meaningless or misleading, as they will not have a balanced budget in their term, or we are going to see huge tax rises and borrowing which he said was not going to happen. Fully costed is what I keep hearing from them yet now the IFS says a massive black hole. Either Labour are being economical with the truth or the IFS are wrong (possibly both). See… here is the thing…. 1) why are you just picking on labour… when all the parties are being pulled apart You could argue labour is the “least worst” … but that’s like arguing what’s the least painful way to rip off the plaster!! It’s still going to hurt… What the IFS are all saying is that all the parties, to some degree more than others, are overestimating the amount of revenue they think they can get in using the measures they propose….. And if that is the case something will have to give and some taxes will rise! As Labour are pretty much nailed on to be the next government is why I chose to mention Labour as only theirs has relevance to the future. Office comes with greater scrutiny and those in office should be held to a high standard. At least that's what used to be said when the Tories were making a mess of things. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
