• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

AND HERE WE GO - THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 18645
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hobbit said:
Isn't that the problem though, choosing which party to vote for based on personality. When Corbyn speaks from the heart I like the guy, but that doesn't mean I like his overall politics. I also think the his lies are worse than the others lies doesn't look at the bigger picture. What is affordable? Which party has the better NHS/Social Care policies?

Equally, there are those on here who deflect back to the Tories - I see both sides on here doing it.

You'll make your choice, and it will be right for you, and I'll make my choice, and it will be right for me. And it doesn't matter whether or not I agree with you. Your choice won't be wrong because it will pass the benchmark/criteria you set.
Click to expand...

Just on that - when he is on the stump so do I - but when he is interviewed I just don't - then I just don't get a great sense of honesty and authenticity from what he says. He be cause just too evasive. Unlike McDonnell who - to me - like him or not - agree with him or not - is usually absolutely clear and certain over what he says and how he says it.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Just on that - when he is on the stump so do I - but when he is interviewed I just don't - then I just don't get a great sense of honesty and authenticity from what he says. He be cause just too evasive. Unlike McDonnell who - to me - like him or not - agree with him or not - is usually absolutely clear and certain over what he says and how he says it.
Click to expand...

On the stump he tells you what Labour are going to do and how bad the Tories are. When questioned about it in an interview his, and Labour's, credibility is brought into question. And because he fails miserably, he is seen as untrustworthy.
 
ColchesterFC said:
My figures were based on 1 billion = 1000 million. 6 zeroes in a million and 9 zeroes in a billion. And I'm right.

Whoever did the calculation based on 1 billion = 100 million is an incompetent fool. 100 million = 100 million ≠ 1 billion. (y)
Click to expand...
Okay let resurrect this, imagine we have 50 billionaires in this country some say there may be more but let’s use the lowest valuation.
How much would they have to give to make each member of our 67million population a millionaire?
My guess from all of this is tiny .. as I estimate that they could give everyone £74million and we would all be the same .. but I might have confused myself with all those bloody zeros!! :eek::eek:
I definitely did confuse myself! They could gift £74,600 per person..but we are only assuming that they are single billionaires.. if they are multiple billionaires then it would get higher.
 
Last edited:
A Billion is recognised these days as being one thousand million:
1,000,000,000.
Previously the UK used one million million but this has generally gone out of use. When politicians are talking about billions they are meaning one thousand million.

So to keep it simple, to give 70 million people a thousand pounds each would cost : 70,000,000 x 1,000 = 70,000,000,000 or seventy thousand million pounds.
 
Last edited:
harpo_72 said:
Okay let resurrect this, imagine we have 50 billionaires in this country some say there may be more but let’s use the lowest valuation.
How much would they have to give to make each member of our 67million population a millionaire?
My guess from all of this is tiny .. as I estimate that they could give everyone £74million and we would all be the same .. but I might have confused myself with all those bloody zeros!! :eek::eek:
I definitely did confuse myself! They could gift £74,600 per person..but we are only assuming that they are single billionaires.. if they are multiple billionaires then it would get higher.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what either of your calculations are supposed to show???

In your first example, 50 people donating £74 million each to then be split between 67 million people would mean each person getting about £55 each.

In your second example, if you want each billionaire to give 67 million people nearly £75k each, that would cost each billionaire nearly £5 billion each and each individual would end up with close to £4m each.

I would suggest leaving the sums to folks better qualified like Diane Abbot and Nick Gibb...
 
The sum that sticks in my head is that according to some 'experts' ATM we pay virtually the same cost per head for a BBC TV licence as to stay in Europe.
That seems like a hell of a bargain to me.
Can we not just scrap the BBC and then gain all of the advantages of being a member of the EU.(y)
 
Interesting that we moan about the MPs and their creative and unreal numbers yet when we challenge the spending we use a 60mill population (2019: 68mill). You'd not give kids below 18 the same as a 40 year old etc. etc. In fact there are about 30mill household in 2019. Then of course you can look at how many are working, disabled, OAPs and so on until you're confused and then go on to add costs for means testing so the cost of distribution gives job creation etc etc.

It's a game the press and politicians play.....
 
Doon frae Troon said:
The sum that sticks in my head is that according to some 'experts' ATM we pay virtually the same cost per head for a BBC TV licence as to stay in Europe.
That seems like a hell of a bargain to me.
Can we not just scrap the BBC and then gain all of the advantages of being a member of the EU.(y)
Click to expand...

Or just scrap both and be twice as well off (y)(y)

But net EU contribution is about 9bill and Licence income is about half that at under 4bill - so I'm not sure the numbers stack up.
 
Apparantly Diane Abbott has told Jeremy Corbyn that she has proof the sale has already started at DFS. Jeremy reminded her it's the NHS 😉
 
Last edited:
Doon frae Troon said:
The sum that sticks in my head is that according to some 'experts' ATM we pay virtually the same cost per head for a BBC TV licence as to stay in Europe.
That seems like a hell of a bargain to me.
Can we not just scrap the BBC and then gain all of the advantages of being a member of the EU.(y)
Click to expand...

It's not the cost that's the issue but the unwelcome interference, in our daily lives, from a disconnected bureaucracy... As someone wanting independence from a similiar bureaucracy thought you'd understand that...

As I've asked several times previously with no serious response from any quarter... How many layers of bureaucracy do we actually need?
 
MegaSteve said:
It's not the cost that's the issue but the unwelcome interference, in our daily lives, from a disconnected bureaucracy... As someone wanting independence from a similiar bureaucracy thought you'd understand that...

As I've asked several times previously with no serious response from any quarter... How many layers of bureaucracy do we actually need?
Click to expand...

Agree that one less level of unwanted interference from a union would be welcomed in Scotland.:love:
 
Last edited:
I've decided to pay my council tax next year using Conservative party maths.

When they ask me for £1000 I'll tell them that I will indeed pay them the full £1000 but that will include £380 pounds that I have already paid them. If it's good enough for them when it comes to the number of additional nurses they will recruit then it's good enough for me when it comes to paying council tax.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top