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 |
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep... not a good interview... it just felt like he was not prepared and it wasn't hard gotcha questions he was being asked " To be fair she hounded him a bit and was points scoring with him, rather than be genuinely interested in the number. I'd rather he had to actually explain the number in as much time as necessary because I'm confident he can't afford it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep... not a good interview... it just felt like he was not prepared and it wasn't hard gotcha questions he was being asked To be fair she hounded him a bit and was points scoring with him, rather than be genuinely interested in the number. I'd rather he had to actually explain the number in as much time as necessary because I'm confident he can't afford it. " Yes, she was being un-necessarily bitchy about it. I think she watched Paxman last night and decided she should get in on some of that aggression. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep... not a good interview... it just felt like he was not prepared and it wasn't hard gotcha questions he was being asked To be fair she hounded him a bit and was points scoring with him, rather than be genuinely interested in the number. I'd rather he had to actually explain the number in as much time as necessary because I'm confident he can't afford it. Yes, she was being un-necessarily bitchy about it. I think she watched Paxman last night and decided she should get in on some of that aggression. -Matt" She came across as insincere by pretending he should have every fecking number on the tip of his tongue. It just plays to his diehard supporters who are convinced there's a conspiracy against him. Let the guy explain how he's going to collect more tax than any prime minister in british history!!! He can't do it - let him try though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep... not a good interview... it just felt like he was not prepared and it wasn't hard gotcha questions he was being asked To be fair she hounded him a bit and was points scoring with him, rather than be genuinely interested in the number. I'd rather he had to actually explain the number in as much time as necessary because I'm confident he can't afford it. Yes, she was being un-necessarily bitchy about it. I think she watched Paxman last night and decided she should get in on some of that aggression. -Matt She came across as insincere by pretending he should have every fecking number on the tip of his tongue. It just plays to his diehard supporters who are convinced there's a conspiracy against him. Let the guy explain how he's going to collect more tax than any prime minister in british history!!! He can't do it - let him try though. " I don't think it is just his diehard supporters though, if you look at the #womanshour hashtag on twitter, you will see the vast majority of people tweeting about it are saying she was out of order. I'm under no illusion that some of his tax collection plans might not collect as much as he thinks. But I like the sentiment of them. And what is the alternative? The Tories don't seem to have any plan at all. And 7 years of 'austerity' don't seem to have gotten us anywhere. They keep going on about cutting immigration and yet have missed every target they have set in 7 years. Yet, still saying the same number and have still not costed the economic cost of that reduction in immigration. Last night May was saying that we need to train people up for specific jobs... yet she has cut education and training. No, Labour's plans are not faultless... but Tory's have repeatedly let us down, and now want us to trust them with no plan or costs for anything. And that is supposedly 'strong and stable'. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep... not a good interview... it just felt like he was not prepared and it wasn't hard gotcha questions he was being asked To be fair she hounded him a bit and was points scoring with him, rather than be genuinely interested in the number. I'd rather he had to actually explain the number in as much time as necessary because I'm confident he can't afford it. Yes, she was being un-necessarily bitchy about it. I think she watched Paxman last night and decided she should get in on some of that aggression. -Matt She came across as insincere by pretending he should have every fecking number on the tip of his tongue. It just plays to his diehard supporters who are convinced there's a conspiracy against him. Let the guy explain how he's going to collect more tax than any prime minister in british history!!! He can't do it - let him try though. I don't think it is just his diehard supporters though, if you look at the #womanshour hashtag on twitter, you will see the vast majority of people tweeting about it are saying she was out of order. I'm under no illusion that some of his tax collection plans might not collect as much as he thinks. But I like the sentiment of them. And what is the alternative? The Tories don't seem to have any plan at all. And 7 years of 'austerity' don't seem to have gotten us anywhere. They keep going on about cutting immigration and yet have missed every target they have set in 7 years. Yet, still saying the same number and have still not costed the economic cost of that reduction in immigration. Last night May was saying that we need to train people up for specific jobs... yet she has cut education and training. No, Labour's plans are not faultless... but Tory's have repeatedly let us down, and now want us to trust them with no plan or costs for anything. And that is supposedly 'strong and stable'. -Matt" The deficit is halved which is better than increasing it. If he can't collect the tax (as the IFS say) then he'll increase the deficit. It's really a choice of whether you want the deficit to keep going down or back up again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Corybn and the pope have lunch by the beach.A gust of wind blows the popes hat 60yds out into the sea.Corbyn walks out across the sea and picks up the popes hat and returns it. The headlines the next day read.CORBYN CAN'T SWIM... "Still a shit joke | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep... not a good interview... it just felt like he was not prepared and it wasn't hard gotcha questions he was being asked To be fair she hounded him a bit and was points scoring with him, rather than be genuinely interested in the number. I'd rather he had to actually explain the number in as much time as necessary because I'm confident he can't afford it. Yes, she was being un-necessarily bitchy about it. I think she watched Paxman last night and decided she should get in on some of that aggression. -Matt She came across as insincere by pretending he should have every fecking number on the tip of his tongue. It just plays to his diehard supporters who are convinced there's a conspiracy against him. Let the guy explain how he's going to collect more tax than any prime minister in british history!!! He can't do it - let him try though. I don't think it is just his diehard supporters though, if you look at the #womanshour hashtag on twitter, you will see the vast majority of people tweeting about it are saying she was out of order. I'm under no illusion that some of his tax collection plans might not collect as much as he thinks. But I like the sentiment of them. And what is the alternative? The Tories don't seem to have any plan at all. And 7 years of 'austerity' don't seem to have gotten us anywhere. They keep going on about cutting immigration and yet have missed every target they have set in 7 years. Yet, still saying the same number and have still not costed the economic cost of that reduction in immigration. Last night May was saying that we need to train people up for specific jobs... yet she has cut education and training. No, Labour's plans are not faultless... but Tory's have repeatedly let us down, and now want us to trust them with no plan or costs for anything. And that is supposedly 'strong and stable'. -Matt The deficit is halved which is better than increasing it. If he can't collect the tax (as the IFS say) then he'll increase the deficit. It's really a choice of whether you want the deficit to keep going down or back up again. " In an ideal world, I'd like the deficit to go down, of course. But I'd like to have working public services and a decrease in the gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots' more. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The deficit is halved which is better than increasing it. " ...and... "It's really a choice of whether you want the deficit to keep going down or back up again." Err, the deficit is going up. Have a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39897498 The rate of borrowing is slowing down is all... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The deficit is halved which is better than increasing it. ...and... It's really a choice of whether you want the deficit to keep going down or back up again. Err, the deficit is going up. Have a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39897498 The rate of borrowing is slowing down is all..." Where does it say that sorry? From that source: "While the deficit did fall by almost half by 2015, it was still nearly £80bn for the year. Philip Hammond took over as chancellor in 2016 and has seen the deficit fall further. For the financial year to the end of March 2017, the deficit was £52bn or 2.6% of GDP." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"one wonders how mrs May or any tory for that matter would of answered a similar question on any of there policies ? oh thats right they cant as none of there manifesto is costed at all !" thing is they can't and won't because tory press will never press them on anything. if they do get pushed theyll bring up we inherited a massive debt bla bla bla..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@brokenbrilliance - sorry. I confused deficit and debt. The debt is increasing so we are all fucked. But the rate of increase of debt is slowing down so we are being fucked more slowly. " So here's a thought for you. The Ministry of Defence is the 5th largest government department. We already spend more on debt interest every year than we do on national defence. Interest rates are rock bottom. Everyone already moans that schools are shite as a result of being underfunded. Well that's the 4th largest department. What do you suppose will happen to those schools when the cost of annual interest is more than the cost of running schools? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"one wonders how mrs May or any tory for that matter would of answered a similar question on any of there policies ? oh thats right they cant as none of there manifesto is costed at all ! thing is they can't and won't because tory press will never press them on anything. if they do get pushed theyll bring up we inherited a massive debt bla bla bla....." Should have never bailed out the fecking banks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Corybn and the pope have lunch by the beach.A gust of wind blows the popes hat 60yds out into the sea.Corbyn walks out across the sea and picks up the popes hat and returns it. The headlines the next day read.CORBYN CAN'T SWIM... "There's a spoof "Corbyn seen having a curry with skeletor in the 80s" article doing the rounds that made me chuckle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The deficit is halved which is better than increasing it. ...and... It's really a choice of whether you want the deficit to keep going down or back up again. Err, the deficit is going up. Have a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39897498 The rate of borrowing is slowing down is all..." Someone else who doesn't know the difference between deficit and debt. The deficit (amount borrowed each year) is going down . The debt (total owed) is going up and will continue to do so until the deficit is zero. As for Corbyn not knowing figures he was launching ONE policy with ONE figure. He came onto the radio to make a big announcement.... he should have had that figure down pat! My point was he made himself look like a Pratt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"one wonders how mrs May or any tory for that matter would of answered a similar question on any of there policies ? oh thats right they cant as none of there manifesto is costed at all ! thing is they can't and won't because tory press will never press them on anything. if they do get pushed theyll bring up we inherited a massive debt bla bla bla..... Should have never bailed out the fecking banks. " Totally agree....Gordon Brown was a moron for doing so...... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been reported that Emma Barnett, who interviewed JC, got a torrent of abuse on social media afterwards. The disturbing thing was that a lot of this abuse was anti-Semitic. " And, sadly, not untypical of Corbyns supporters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"one wonders how mrs May or any tory for that matter would of answered a similar question on any of there policies ? oh thats right they cant as none of there manifesto is costed at all ! thing is they can't and won't because tory press will never press them on anything. if they do get pushed theyll bring up we inherited a massive debt bla bla bla..... Should have never bailed out the fecking banks. Totally agree....Gordon Brown was a moron for doing so......" But let's not pretend conservatives wouldn't have done the same. Let's not fall into the trap that the dellusional left fall into and claim that because the national debt has ballooned under the conservatives, it must be their fault. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"one wonders how mrs May or any tory for that matter would of answered a similar question on any of there policies ? oh thats right they cant as none of there manifesto is costed at all ! thing is they can't and won't because tory press will never press them on anything. if they do get pushed theyll bring up we inherited a massive debt bla bla bla..... Should have never bailed out the fecking banks. Totally agree....Gordon Brown was a moron for doing so......" Do you seriously think that a tory chancellor and pm would have said to the finance industry go sink .. ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"one wonders how mrs May or any tory for that matter would of answered a similar question on any of there policies ? oh thats right they cant as none of there manifesto is costed at all ! thing is they can't and won't because tory press will never press them on anything. if they do get pushed theyll bring up we inherited a massive debt bla bla bla..... Should have never bailed out the fecking banks. Totally agree....Gordon Brown was a moron for doing so...... Do you seriously think that a tory chancellor and pm would have said to the finance industry go sink .. ?" I think it's a myth that the whole industry would have gone under without a bailout. Not every bank was reckless and these are fundamentally companies with very few physical assets that are difficult to transfer. In simple terms, the smaller more responsible banks could have asset stripped the irresponsible ones and frankly fuck the people who lose money in the process, that's what investing is about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been reported that Emma Barnett, who interviewed JC, got a torrent of abuse on social media afterwards. The disturbing thing was that a lot of this abuse was anti-Semitic. And, sadly, not untypical of Corbyns supporters." I think what you meant to say was 'not untypical of anti-semites'. I presume you also saw Corbyn defend Barnett and the abuse she got and called it out as being totally unacceptable. He stood up in Watford and said: “It is totally, absolutely and completely unacceptable for anyone to throw abuse at anyone else. Under no circumstances should anyone throw abuse because of the job they’re doing. I will not tolerate it.” Also, very little of the abuse was anti-semitic. There were one of two people calling her a "zionist shill". The VAST majority were just taking her to task for being rude and aggressive. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"one wonders how mrs May or any tory for that matter would of answered a similar question on any of there policies ? oh thats right they cant as none of there manifesto is costed at all ! thing is they can't and won't because tory press will never press them on anything. if they do get pushed theyll bring up we inherited a massive debt bla bla bla..... Should have never bailed out the fecking banks. Totally agree....Gordon Brown was a moron for doing so...... Do you seriously think that a tory chancellor and pm would have said to the finance industry go sink .. ? I think it's a myth that the whole industry would have gone under without a bailout. Not every bank was reckless and these are fundamentally companies with very few physical assets that are difficult to transfer. In simple terms, the smaller more responsible banks could have asset stripped the irresponsible ones and frankly fuck the people who lose money in the process, that's what investing is about. " Probably not all I agree but the shit storm on the streets and the overall potential mess was something no chancellor wanted on their cv as their head would have rolled too maybe.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's been reported that Emma Barnett, who interviewed JC, got a torrent of abuse on social media afterwards. The disturbing thing was that a lot of this abuse was anti-Semitic. And, sadly, not untypical of Corbyns supporters." These militant momentum Corbyn cult members really showed their true colours yesterday, and as for Corbyn's interview, what a shambles. Just proved he's as incompetent as Diane Abbott. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"one wonders how mrs May or any tory for that matter would of answered a similar question on any of there policies ? oh thats right they cant as none of there manifesto is costed at all ! thing is they can't and won't because tory press will never press them on anything. if they do get pushed theyll bring up we inherited a massive debt bla bla bla..... Should have never bailed out the fecking banks. Totally agree....Gordon Brown was a moron for doing so...... Do you seriously think that a tory chancellor and pm would have said to the finance industry go sink .. ? I think it's a myth that the whole industry would have gone under without a bailout. Not every bank was reckless and these are fundamentally companies with very few physical assets that are difficult to transfer. In simple terms, the smaller more responsible banks could have asset stripped the irresponsible ones and frankly fuck the people who lose money in the process, that's what investing is about. Probably not all I agree but the shit storm on the streets and the overall potential mess was something no chancellor wanted on their cv as their head would have rolled too maybe.." It's not a problem that has an easy, pain free solution available. But at least the Americans let lehman brothers go to hell. As a very minimum they could have broken up RBS between retail and investment banking. A government bailing out an investment bank is just an insane level of moral hazard. The level of arrogance in these organisations is incredible, lehman brothers refused some very generous take over offers before going to zero, that's what happens when they think they are entitled to taxpayers money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No chance of Teresa may making the same mistake on women's hour... she has declined to be interviewed and is sending Justine greening instead.... Not suggesting may is now ducking any hard interviews but............ "Maybe she's girding her loins for tonight's Question Time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought Corbyn let the side down with that interview, especially as he must know that the Conservatives, their media and corporate pals are keeping their fingers crossed whenever he interviews, hoping he'd slip up. It wasn't even a tricky question but once Emma Barnett saw he was in a bind she gratuitously attacked like a shark at the sight of blood. Her attitude had nothing to do with a genuine interest in informing the public because afterall, she already had the figures she was requesting. " This bit is true " How did she have them? One of Corbyn's ministers had interviewed earlier that day and provided an exhaustive explanation of the policy and all the costings. " This bit isn't. The numbers don't add up. Saying "the manifesto is costed" is like me saying that i know i could buy everton football club for £200m. Then problem is that i don't have £200m to buy it and neither does Corbyn have the money for his promises. " Of course all the Corbyn haters went to town with the interview because they know that a huge amount of the electorate are too stupid to understand that how good a policy is has nothing to do with whether the numbers are remembered or not." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought Corbyn let the side down with that interview, especially as he must know that the Conservatives, their media and corporate pals are keeping their fingers crossed whenever he interviews, hoping he'd slip up. It wasn't even a tricky question but once Emma Barnett saw he was in a bind she gratuitously attacked like a shark at the sight of blood. Her attitude had nothing to do with a genuine interest in informing the public because afterall, she already had the figures she was requesting. This bit is true How did she have them? One of Corbyn's ministers had interviewed earlier that day and provided an exhaustive explanation of the policy and all the costings. This bit isn't. The numbers don't add up. Saying "the manifesto is costed" is like me saying that i know i could buy everton football club for £200m. Then problem is that i don't have £200m to buy it and neither does Corbyn have the money for his promises. " The man has said how he intends to raise the money. Amongst other things increased taxation on the wealthiest 5% and an increase in Corporation Tax to 29% by 2020 I believe. Besides, since when has not having cash-in-hand stopped any government from doing anything. If it did, there'd be no national debt for a start. You think the Tories only spent money they had? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought Corbyn let the side down with that interview, especially as he must know that the Conservatives, their media and corporate pals are keeping their fingers crossed whenever he interviews, hoping he'd slip up. It wasn't even a tricky question but once Emma Barnett saw he was in a bind she gratuitously attacked like a shark at the sight of blood. Her attitude had nothing to do with a genuine interest in informing the public because afterall, she already had the figures she was requesting. This bit is true How did she have them? One of Corbyn's ministers had interviewed earlier that day and provided an exhaustive explanation of the policy and all the costings. This bit isn't. The numbers don't add up. Saying "the manifesto is costed" is like me saying that i know i could buy everton football club for £200m. Then problem is that i don't have £200m to buy it and neither does Corbyn have the money for his promises. The man has said how he intends to raise the money. Amongst other things increased taxation on the wealthiest 5% and an increase in Corporation Tax to 29% by 2020 I believe. Besides, since when has not having cash-in-hand stopped any government from doing anything. If it did, there'd be no national debt for a start. You think the Tories only spent money they had?" The IFS have already shown the taxes raises won't work. We already collect as much from the economy as the top end of our long run average (tax to GDP ratio) and people already complain about tac evasion. Raising the rates will just raise tax avoidance / evasion. It won't raise much more money, no where near enough to pay for this plans. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought Corbyn let the side down with that interview, especially as he must know that the Conservatives, their media and corporate pals are keeping their fingers crossed whenever he interviews, hoping he'd slip up. It wasn't even a tricky question but once Emma Barnett saw he was in a bind she gratuitously attacked like a shark at the sight of blood. Her attitude had nothing to do with a genuine interest in informing the public because afterall, she already had the figures she was requesting. This bit is true How did she have them? One of Corbyn's ministers had interviewed earlier that day and provided an exhaustive explanation of the policy and all the costings. This bit isn't. The numbers don't add up. Saying "the manifesto is costed" is like me saying that i know i could buy everton football club for £200m. Then problem is that i don't have £200m to buy it and neither does Corbyn have the money for his promises. The man has said how he intends to raise the money. Amongst other things increased taxation on the wealthiest 5% and an increase in Corporation Tax to 29% by 2020 I believe. Besides, since when has not having cash-in-hand stopped any government from doing anything. If it did, there'd be no national debt for a start. You think the Tories only spent money they had? The IFS have already shown the taxes raises won't work. We already collect as much from the economy as the top end of our long run average (tax to GDP ratio) and people already complain about tac evasion. Raising the rates will just raise tax avoidance / evasion. It won't raise much more money, no where near enough to pay for this plans. " The IFS isn't infallible. It's been known to be wrong before. Quite a few times actually and most recently on Brexit. They may well be right on this occasion but for all we know of the Tory plans, they could be worse than Corbyn's because their manifesto has no numbers. They haven't done any costings. Yet they have the cheek to criticise Corbyn on his figures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought Corbyn let the side down with that interview, especially as he must know that the Conservatives, their media and corporate pals are keeping their fingers crossed whenever he interviews, hoping he'd slip up. It wasn't even a tricky question but once Emma Barnett saw he was in a bind she gratuitously attacked like a shark at the sight of blood. Her attitude had nothing to do with a genuine interest in informing the public because afterall, she already had the figures she was requesting. This bit is true How did she have them? One of Corbyn's ministers had interviewed earlier that day and provided an exhaustive explanation of the policy and all the costings. This bit isn't. The numbers don't add up. Saying "the manifesto is costed" is like me saying that i know i could buy everton football club for £200m. Then problem is that i don't have £200m to buy it and neither does Corbyn have the money for his promises. The man has said how he intends to raise the money. Amongst other things increased taxation on the wealthiest 5% and an increase in Corporation Tax to 29% by 2020 I believe. Besides, since when has not having cash-in-hand stopped any government from doing anything. If it did, there'd be no national debt for a start. You think the Tories only spent money they had? The IFS have already shown the taxes raises won't work. We already collect as much from the economy as the top end of our long run average (tax to GDP ratio) and people already complain about tac evasion. Raising the rates will just raise tax avoidance / evasion. It won't raise much more money, no where near enough to pay for this plans. The IFS isn't infallible. It's been known to be wrong before. Quite a few times actually and most recently on Brexit. They may well be right on this occasion but for all we know of the Tory plans, they could be worse than Corbyn's because their manifesto has no numbers. They haven't done any costings. Yet they have the cheek to criticise Corbyn on his figures." We know the tories reduced the deficit since 2010. The liklihood is that Corbyn would increase it because it's highly unlikely the tax increases will generate the predicted revenue. Besides, those aren't the only two parties you can vote for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought Corbyn let the side down with that interview, especially as he must know that the Conservatives, their media and corporate pals are keeping their fingers crossed whenever he interviews, hoping he'd slip up. It wasn't even a tricky question but once Emma Barnett saw he was in a bind she gratuitously attacked like a shark at the sight of blood. Her attitude had nothing to do with a genuine interest in informing the public because afterall, she already had the figures she was requesting. This bit is true How did she have them? One of Corbyn's ministers had interviewed earlier that day and provided an exhaustive explanation of the policy and all the costings. This bit isn't. The numbers don't add up. Saying "the manifesto is costed" is like me saying that i know i could buy everton football club for £200m. Then problem is that i don't have £200m to buy it and neither does Corbyn have the money for his promises. The man has said how he intends to raise the money. Amongst other things increased taxation on the wealthiest 5% and an increase in Corporation Tax to 29% by 2020 I believe. Besides, since when has not having cash-in-hand stopped any government from doing anything. If it did, there'd be no national debt for a start. You think the Tories only spent money they had? The IFS have already shown the taxes raises won't work. We already collect as much from the economy as the top end of our long run average (tax to GDP ratio) and people already complain about tac evasion. Raising the rates will just raise tax avoidance / evasion. It won't raise much more money, no where near enough to pay for this plans. The IFS isn't infallible. It's been known to be wrong before. Quite a few times actually and most recently on Brexit. They may well be right on this occasion but for all we know of the Tory plans, they could be worse than Corbyn's because their manifesto has no numbers. They haven't done any costings. Yet they have the cheek to criticise Corbyn on his figures." Indeed, people are complaining that Labours numbers don't add up, or that they won't be able to collect the revenue they are projecting. But then the Conservatives haven't costed any of their proposals (apart from the 7 pence of cornflakes) and so far have not managed to hit any of their targets for the part 7 years. So whilst the Labour plan might not be perfect, and whilst it might fall short, I still back the general principal of it. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought Corbyn let the side down with that interview, especially as he must know that the Conservatives, their media and corporate pals are keeping their fingers crossed whenever he interviews, hoping he'd slip up. It wasn't even a tricky question but once Emma Barnett saw he was in a bind she gratuitously attacked like a shark at the sight of blood. Her attitude had nothing to do with a genuine interest in informing the public because afterall, she already had the figures she was requesting. This bit is true How did she have them? One of Corbyn's ministers had interviewed earlier that day and provided an exhaustive explanation of the policy and all the costings. This bit isn't. The numbers don't add up. Saying "the manifesto is costed" is like me saying that i know i could buy everton football club for £200m. Then problem is that i don't have £200m to buy it and neither does Corbyn have the money for his promises. The man has said how he intends to raise the money. Amongst other things increased taxation on the wealthiest 5% and an increase in Corporation Tax to 29% by 2020 I believe. Besides, since when has not having cash-in-hand stopped any government from doing anything. If it did, there'd be no national debt for a start. You think the Tories only spent money they had? The IFS have already shown the taxes raises won't work. We already collect as much from the economy as the top end of our long run average (tax to GDP ratio) and people already complain about tac evasion. Raising the rates will just raise tax avoidance / evasion. It won't raise much more money, no where near enough to pay for this plans. The IFS isn't infallible. It's been known to be wrong before. Quite a few times actually and most recently on Brexit. They may well be right on this occasion but for all we know of the Tory plans, they could be worse than Corbyn's because their manifesto has no numbers. They haven't done any costings. Yet they have the cheek to criticise Corbyn on his figures. Indeed, people are complaining that Labours numbers don't add up, or that they won't be able to collect the revenue they are projecting. But then the Conservatives haven't costed any of their proposals (apart from the 7 pence of cornflakes) and so far have not managed to hit any of their targets for the part 7 years. So whilst the Labour plan might not be perfect, and whilst it might fall short, I still back the general principal of it. -Matt" So because the conservatives won't confirm how much they will reduce the deficit by, we should vote for someone who will almost certainly increase it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought Corbyn let the side down with that interview, especially as he must know that the Conservatives, their media and corporate pals are keeping their fingers crossed whenever he interviews, hoping he'd slip up. It wasn't even a tricky question but once Emma Barnett saw he was in a bind she gratuitously attacked like a shark at the sight of blood. Her attitude had nothing to do with a genuine interest in informing the public because afterall, she already had the figures she was requesting. This bit is true How did she have them? One of Corbyn's ministers had interviewed earlier that day and provided an exhaustive explanation of the policy and all the costings. This bit isn't. The numbers don't add up. Saying "the manifesto is costed" is like me saying that i know i could buy everton football club for £200m. Then problem is that i don't have £200m to buy it and neither does Corbyn have the money for his promises. The man has said how he intends to raise the money. Amongst other things increased taxation on the wealthiest 5% and an increase in Corporation Tax to 29% by 2020 I believe. Besides, since when has not having cash-in-hand stopped any government from doing anything. If it did, there'd be no national debt for a start. You think the Tories only spent money they had? The IFS have already shown the taxes raises won't work. We already collect as much from the economy as the top end of our long run average (tax to GDP ratio) and people already complain about tac evasion. Raising the rates will just raise tax avoidance / evasion. It won't raise much more money, no where near enough to pay for this plans. The IFS isn't infallible. It's been known to be wrong before. Quite a few times actually and most recently on Brexit. They may well be right on this occasion but for all we know of the Tory plans, they could be worse than Corbyn's because their manifesto has no numbers. They haven't done any costings. Yet they have the cheek to criticise Corbyn on his figures. Indeed, people are complaining that Labours numbers don't add up, or that they won't be able to collect the revenue they are projecting. But then the Conservatives haven't costed any of their proposals (apart from the 7 pence of cornflakes) and so far have not managed to hit any of their targets for the part 7 years. So whilst the Labour plan might not be perfect, and whilst it might fall short, I still back the general principal of it. -Matt So because the conservatives won't confirm how much they will reduce the deficit by, we should vote for someone who will almost certainly increase it?" No, more like rather than voting for the party that have proved themselves to be socially and economically damaging to the country, I'm voting for a party that has a lot of good plans to be better, despite the chance they might not succeed in all their goals. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought Corbyn let the side down with that interview, especially as he must know that the Conservatives, their media and corporate pals are keeping their fingers crossed whenever he interviews, hoping he'd slip up. It wasn't even a tricky question but once Emma Barnett saw he was in a bind she gratuitously attacked like a shark at the sight of blood. Her attitude had nothing to do with a genuine interest in informing the public because afterall, she already had the figures she was requesting. This bit is true How did she have them? One of Corbyn's ministers had interviewed earlier that day and provided an exhaustive explanation of the policy and all the costings. This bit isn't. The numbers don't add up. Saying "the manifesto is costed" is like me saying that i know i could buy everton football club for £200m. Then problem is that i don't have £200m to buy it and neither does Corbyn have the money for his promises. The man has said how he intends to raise the money. Amongst other things increased taxation on the wealthiest 5% and an increase in Corporation Tax to 29% by 2020 I believe. Besides, since when has not having cash-in-hand stopped any government from doing anything. If it did, there'd be no national debt for a start. You think the Tories only spent money they had? The IFS have already shown the taxes raises won't work. We already collect as much from the economy as the top end of our long run average (tax to GDP ratio) and people already complain about tac evasion. Raising the rates will just raise tax avoidance / evasion. It won't raise much more money, no where near enough to pay for this plans. The IFS isn't infallible. It's been known to be wrong before. Quite a few times actually and most recently on Brexit. They may well be right on this occasion but for all we know of the Tory plans, they could be worse than Corbyn's because their manifesto has no numbers. They haven't done any costings. Yet they have the cheek to criticise Corbyn on his figures. Indeed, people are complaining that Labours numbers don't add up, or that they won't be able to collect the revenue they are projecting. But then the Conservatives haven't costed any of their proposals (apart from the 7 pence of cornflakes) and so far have not managed to hit any of their targets for the part 7 years. So whilst the Labour plan might not be perfect, and whilst it might fall short, I still back the general principal of it. -Matt So because the conservatives won't confirm how much they will reduce the deficit by, we should vote for someone who will almost certainly increase it? No, more like rather than voting for the party that have proved themselves to be socially and economically damaging to the country, I'm voting for a party that has a lot of good plans to be better, despite the chance they might not succeed in all their goals. -Matt" I'm more worried that by failing they will saddle us with even mire debt, such that when interest rates inevitably rise we will be spending the entire education budget on interest. That doesn't strike me as very socially progressive, putting more money into debt interest than education esch year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought Corbyn let the side down with that interview, especially as he must know that the Conservatives, their media and corporate pals are keeping their fingers crossed whenever he interviews, hoping he'd slip up. It wasn't even a tricky question but once Emma Barnett saw he was in a bind she gratuitously attacked like a shark at the sight of blood. Her attitude had nothing to do with a genuine interest in informing the public because afterall, she already had the figures she was requesting. This bit is true How did she have them? One of Corbyn's ministers had interviewed earlier that day and provided an exhaustive explanation of the policy and all the costings. This bit isn't. The numbers don't add up. Saying "the manifesto is costed" is like me saying that i know i could buy everton football club for £200m. Then problem is that i don't have £200m to buy it and neither does Corbyn have the money for his promises. The man has said how he intends to raise the money. Amongst other things increased taxation on the wealthiest 5% and an increase in Corporation Tax to 29% by 2020 I believe. Besides, since when has not having cash-in-hand stopped any government from doing anything. If it did, there'd be no national debt for a start. You think the Tories only spent money they had? The IFS have already shown the taxes raises won't work. We already collect as much from the economy as the top end of our long run average (tax to GDP ratio) and people already complain about tac evasion. Raising the rates will just raise tax avoidance / evasion. It won't raise much more money, no where near enough to pay for this plans. The IFS isn't infallible. It's been known to be wrong before. Quite a few times actually and most recently on Brexit. They may well be right on this occasion but for all we know of the Tory plans, they could be worse than Corbyn's because their manifesto has no numbers. They haven't done any costings. Yet they have the cheek to criticise Corbyn on his figures. Indeed, people are complaining that Labours numbers don't add up, or that they won't be able to collect the revenue they are projecting. But then the Conservatives haven't costed any of their proposals (apart from the 7 pence of cornflakes) and so far have not managed to hit any of their targets for the part 7 years. So whilst the Labour plan might not be perfect, and whilst it might fall short, I still back the general principal of it. -Matt So because the conservatives won't confirm how much they will reduce the deficit by, we should vote for someone who will almost certainly increase it? No, more like rather than voting for the party that have proved themselves to be socially and economically damaging to the country, I'm voting for a party that has a lot of good plans to be better, despite the chance they might not succeed in all their goals. -Matt I'm more worried that by failing they will saddle us with even mire debt, such that when interest rates inevitably rise we will be spending the entire education budget on interest. That doesn't strike me as very socially progressive, putting more money into debt interest than education esch year. " I am worried about that risk too, but I see the wholesale destruction of our social services, welfare, education, health, police, fire, etc as a much bigger risk. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought Corbyn let the side down with that interview, especially as he must know that the Conservatives, their media and corporate pals are keeping their fingers crossed whenever he interviews, hoping he'd slip up. It wasn't even a tricky question but once Emma Barnett saw he was in a bind she gratuitously attacked like a shark at the sight of blood. Her attitude had nothing to do with a genuine interest in informing the public because afterall, she already had the figures she was requesting. This bit is true How did she have them? One of Corbyn's ministers had interviewed earlier that day and provided an exhaustive explanation of the policy and all the costings. This bit isn't. The numbers don't add up. Saying "the manifesto is costed" is like me saying that i know i could buy everton football club for £200m. Then problem is that i don't have £200m to buy it and neither does Corbyn have the money for his promises. The man has said how he intends to raise the money. Amongst other things increased taxation on the wealthiest 5% and an increase in Corporation Tax to 29% by 2020 I believe. Besides, since when has not having cash-in-hand stopped any government from doing anything. If it did, there'd be no national debt for a start. You think the Tories only spent money they had? The IFS have already shown the taxes raises won't work. We already collect as much from the economy as the top end of our long run average (tax to GDP ratio) and people already complain about tac evasion. Raising the rates will just raise tax avoidance / evasion. It won't raise much more money, no where near enough to pay for this plans. The IFS isn't infallible. It's been known to be wrong before. Quite a few times actually and most recently on Brexit. They may well be right on this occasion but for all we know of the Tory plans, they could be worse than Corbyn's because their manifesto has no numbers. They haven't done any costings. Yet they have the cheek to criticise Corbyn on his figures. Indeed, people are complaining that Labours numbers don't add up, or that they won't be able to collect the revenue they are projecting. But then the Conservatives haven't costed any of their proposals (apart from the 7 pence of cornflakes) and so far have not managed to hit any of their targets for the part 7 years. So whilst the Labour plan might not be perfect, and whilst it might fall short, I still back the general principal of it. -Matt So because the conservatives won't confirm how much they will reduce the deficit by, we should vote for someone who will almost certainly increase it? No, more like rather than voting for the party that have proved themselves to be socially and economically damaging to the country, I'm voting for a party that has a lot of good plans to be better, despite the chance they might not succeed in all their goals. -Matt" Glad to see you finally accept Brexit Matt. I take it you approve of Labour's position to leave the EU. Corbyn said the other night on the leaders debate he would also leave the single market to end free movement. That's what you are voting for if you vote Labour.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
