Except the £350m isn’t a lie, once you add all the costs as I’ve just proven. And the other side made the point that we get back £160m, which is simple to understand. However trying to explain to people that a 40% rise in corporation tax doesn’t increase receipts by 40% is rather more tricky, and is actually best done, not just through debate but with PowerPoint at said debate showing the damn graphs and hence proving that it doesn’t do that and only then explaining why.
Not really, it just means that people will pay more for imports, and will hence be more likely to put their money in the home market. It’s the exports that would cost jobs if they were lost. Equally it means a big boost for stock investments. I see more positives than negatives.
I was never impressed with the social care bill and in one of my posts I said that she should have at least capped it at £100k or less but she left it opened ended, so it could have meant £100k or £1m or more and many voters didn’t want to spin that wheel. I still supported the Conservatives simply because the alternative was an immediate 3+% increase in the deficit and hence even worse cuts further down the road. That’s just not a valid choice for the country if you possess the power of thought. But if you’re protecting your offspring’s inheritance, you might care more about that than the country, so I understand why the policy lost votes, I would just never choose to make that choice myself.
What was a lie in the Brexit referendum?
There is £350m/week that the EU either takes or decides how to spend for us. The net figure in currently £208m/week but that doesn’t include the £48m/week we give on higher education subsidies, or the £40m/week on JSA and child benefits, the £20m/week on health tourism, or the £200m a week that goes out of the country in remittances. And I haven’t even got onto the impact of low income migration on wages and public services, or missing student debtors. So no, it wasn’t a lie.
And the depreciating currency was an obvious consequence of uncertainty, nothing else and it’s a blessing in disguise wrt exports.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politic…-2017-10266121
The poll tracker is there – check your dates, Ryan.
Oh, and here’s something from your lot about unelectability.. oh, hang on;
They prove my point. Manifesto launched, everything goes to hell.
End of the day, she won even though she put forward a probably realistic agenda to balance the books, even though that was to the detriment of her electorate, where as Corbyn threw the kitchen sink at it and the countries future financial stability in an attempt to get elected, and still she won… Regardless of what Corbyn will tell you
Precisely, Corbyn only managed as many seats as Brown did, when he ran as the Chancellor who’d just wrecked the economy. And now we have people who were only 9 when Labour last ****** up, voting Labour because they don’t understand why the current austerity exists. That is because tens of billions a year get spent servicing the £1.5tr of extra debt Labour clocked up instead of on public services. And if they get in again, afterwards there will be even more tens of billions being spent servicing debt instead of on public services.
Sometimes I really question whether people too young to understand debt should be voting. Are they really any better mentally equipped than a minor?
Both Ryan and John don’t seem to be able to see beyond their own experience and prejudices here (or elsewhere to be honest)
All the analysis available has shown that the real change was in the increase in the youth vote, which in the 18-24 range voted overwhelmingly for Labour. The dementia tax may have had resonance, but it was not the only reason they lost their majority.
The latest polls taken since Thursday suggest that if an election was held tomorrow, labour would form a majority. JC’s approval ratings, despite all that was thrown at him in the right wing press, have rocketed. Not everyone takes your position on defence, nor even of your analysis of Jc’s ‘failure’ on the trident question. Whether you like it or not, even with that trumpeted to the sky, people still voted in large numbers for him.
His subsequent suggestion that labour won the election is clearly facile.
It was the social care bill, the polls dipped as soon as it was mentioned. The Tories needed the elderly vote and they lost it and also the people standing to inherit wouldn’t have been impressed either. But yes, no doubt there are some young dumb people who think haven’t studied the data and think Corbyn’s spending plans are possible and are too young to remember 2008, or at least weren’t affected by it.
What would you do if someone launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the UK Jeremy?
I would exercise diplomacy.
No, diplomacy has already failed at this point, enemy ICBMs are on their way, what would you do?
I would use diplomacy.
You wouldn’t use Trident even if a country launched nuclear missiles at us?
I would use diplomacy.
You mean Duterte should level the entire city with MLRS fire?
In what reality? The Conservatives had a huge majority, why would polls have shifted before the manifestos came out? They didn’t. I witnessed elderly people change their mind first hand, I know what caused it and it was nothing to do with Corbyn. Many of them were probably even throwing up as they voted Labour but they wanted to keep their house.
Says he who ignores very clear tax rate and revenue data.
Corbyn did better than expected because the elderly didn’t want their estates snatching, not because people liked him or because anyone thought his policies were coherent, they just wanted to keep their life’s earnings in the family. The fact he still lost by a long way despite this policy only cements how utterly unelectable he is. If you still end up 56 seats behind after the opposition performs a daylight mugging of the elderly on national TV, then you ain’t ever going to win. Blair, Brown, or even Miliband would have likely won this election in the face of that utterly disastrous policy and campaign strategy.
You can’t dismiss facts just because you don’t like the presenter. But seen as you have, here are earlier reports of the same from other sources.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9948449/EU-students-10-times-more-likely-to-avoid-repaying-loans.html
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-11-28/five-billion-in-student-loans-missing/
Happy?
EU THIEVING STUDENTS One in four European Union citizens who study in England go home without paying a PENNY of their student loans
ONE IN four EU citizens who study in England go home without paying a penny of their loans, the Sun can reveal.
It has left UK taxpayers picking up a bill of more than £400million for their unpaid debts.
What could possibly go wrong? Oh wait.
Maybe we should have a second referendum on EU membership too?
You don’t hold two referendums on the same thing unless something changes. Having a second election with no changes would also be stupid, but I am proposing they do make changes to the manifesto. I don’t think it’s sensible to proceed to try form a government with the present seats, the outcome could be as bad as a return to terrorism in NI and that’s not a price either side wants to pay.
EU’s dodgy maths. Note £22.5bn evaluation of EU assets.
https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/pb_barker_brexit_bill_3feb17.pdf

Actually its £154bn.
http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-brexit-bill-could-eu-assets-partially-offset-liabilities/
Which including rebate and receipts makes the net amount owed either £0 or £10bn not £24.5bn or £33.4bn and certainly not £92bn.
#697
That did occur to me !
Indeed, maybe these two advisers were remoaners because let’s face it, this election was more difficult not end up with a majority in. They had to work damn hard to **** things up this badly.