• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

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.
harpo_72 said:
I don’t think JC is that type of politician and I kind of respect that, as it should be us the electorate to make that decision.
I am not saying I agree with his politics but I do think he is more self control.
Click to expand...

Certainly not in his instinct to take that sort of approach, but not much point believing in a policy agenda if you never get the chance to put it into practice.
 
Doon frae Troon said:
There's Patel of our one nation Tory party saying the government is not responsible of poverty.
Its those sods that form UK society who are to blame.
So that must mean people who voted Tory are responsible for poverty;)
Click to expand...
Very clever words. Now tell me how to remove poverty and why Scotland haven't managed it, is it England's fault?
 
Doon frae Troon said:
There's Patel of our one nation Tory party saying the government is not responsible of poverty.
Its those sods that form UK society who are to blame.
So that must mean people who voted Tory are responsible for poverty;)
Click to expand...

Only heard a snippet of her listing all who are responsible and so absolving government - her government - of the last ten years of any responsibility when it is her government that has been cutting funding to those she listed as being responsible.

And just been listening to Liz Truss being quizzed by Andrew Neil on Politics Live about Affordable Homes.

Neil: So in 2015 your government pledged to build 200,00 affordable starter homes, how many have been built?
Truss: Not sure
Neil: It's an easy number to remember
Truss: Don't know
Neil: It's zero
 
Last edited:
Hobbit said:
You will have had a hand in promotions at work., and you will have based those promotions on past evidence. Someone being late for work occasionally, or nipping out 10 mins early occasionally won't preclude them from promotion. The investigation/case may be closed but it has relevance to that person's future prospects. And if its serious enough they will carry the stain on their record whilst they work there and, probably, will never be promoted. Its naive to suggest everything Corbyn did in the past bears no relevance to his future.

As for the bit in bold highlighted. The Welsh Labour Party reported those incidents to UK Labour's Governance and Legal Unit on Friday night. When asked by the BBC, UK Labour said they will not be investigating those claims as the candidate didn't write those posts. That in itself raises a few questions; why isn't the Labour Party investigating if its a closed group for Labour Party members? How do they know if Ms Carroll didn't make any comments if they haven't investigated? A focus group within Labour called Labour Against Antisemitism has criticised UK Labour's refusal to investigate.
Click to expand...
If it needs sorting from the top down then hopefully it will be, if that means Corbyn losing his job, great.
I’m not defending how they are dealing with the cases, just not getting drawn in to he said/she said articles, you know yourself any organisation can do 99 things correctly, but if 1 person disagrees with any of those 99 they can make their voice heard and cast doubt on all 99.
Hacker showed last night how Swinson’s husband has been smeared.
The Labour Party needs a clean out top to bottom imo, but even if that was to happen there will be people saying it doesn’t.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Only heard a snippet of her listing all who are responsible and so absolving government - her government - of the last ten years of any responsibility when it is her government that has been cutting funding to those she listed as being responsible.

And just been listening to Liz Truss being quizzed by Andrew Neil on Politics Live about Affordable Homes.

Neil: So in 2014 your government pledged to build 200,00 affordable homes, how many have been built?
Truss: Not sure
Neil: It's an easy number to remember
Truss Don't know
Neil: It's zero
Click to expand...
Liz Truss is a dreadful politician. Another one who has been promoted so far above her skill level it is beyond belief. Andrew Neill taking her on is like me playing a scratch round with Rory off championship tees, it is not an equal contest.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
Liz Truss is a dreadful politician. Another one who has been promoted so far above her skill level it is beyond belief. Andrew Neill taking her on is like me playing a scratch round with Rory off championship tees, it is not an equal contest.
Click to expand...
scraping the bottom of the barrel like the rest of boris's cabinet ... :ROFLMAO:
 
Labours sh*t or bust manifesto

https://t.co/9IqX8DFX44?amp=1


Paul Johnson, head of the independent think-tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies, was stunned by the figures being quoted in the Labour manifesto.

He told ITV News Political Correspondent Daniel Hewitt that “it’s impossible to overstate just how extraordinary this manifesto in terms of the sheer scale of money being spent and raised through the tax system”.

Mr Johnson said: "Hundreds of billions of additional spending on investment, £80 billion plus per year on spending on day-to-day things; social security, spending on the NHS, students loans and so on. Matched by, supposedly, an £80 billion increase in tax.

"Now you can talk about tens, hundreds of billions of pounds... take it from me, these are vast numbers - enormous, colossal, in the context of anything we’ve seen in the last...ever...really.”

The IFS director said it was "simply not credible" to expect Labour to raise £80bn of tax revenue all from companies and people earning over £80,000 a year.

"You cannot raise that kind of money in our tax system without affecting individuals," said Mr Johnson.
 
The Labour Manifesto makes the mistake of being honest and saying that the only viable and sustainable way to fund future spending increases that all parties are promising is to raises taxes. This is not true, to fund future spending you can promise to lower taxes and then rely on a magic money tree. #factcheck
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Only heard a snippet of her listing all who are responsible and so absolving government - her government - of the last ten years of any responsibility when it is her government that has been cutting funding to those she listed as being responsible.

And just been listening to Liz Truss being quizzed by Andrew Neil on Politics Live about Affordable Homes.

Neil: So in 2015 your government pledged to build 200,00 affordable starter homes, how many have been built?
Truss: Not sure
Neil: It's an easy number to remember
Truss: Don't know
Neil: It's zero
Click to expand...

Well if Andrew Neil says it has to be true:

https://www.construction.co.uk/cons...er-66-000-affordable-homes-built-in-2015-govt
 
spongebob59 said:
Labours sh*t or bust manifesto

https://t.co/9IqX8DFX44?amp=1


Paul Johnson, head of the independent think-tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies, was stunned by the figures being quoted in the Labour manifesto.

He told ITV News Political Correspondent Daniel Hewitt that “it’s impossible to overstate just how extraordinary this manifesto in terms of the sheer scale of money being spent and raised through the tax system”.

Mr Johnson said: "Hundreds of billions of additional spending on investment, £80 billion plus per year on spending on day-to-day things; social security, spending on the NHS, students loans and so on. Matched by, supposedly, an £80 billion increase in tax.

"Now you can talk about tens, hundreds of billions of pounds... take it from me, these are vast numbers - enormous, colossal, in the context of anything we’ve seen in the last...ever...really.”

The IFS director said it was "simply not credible" to expect Labour to raise £80bn of tax revenue all from companies and people earning over £80,000 a year.

"You cannot raise that kind of money in our tax system without affecting individuals," said Mr Johnson.
Click to expand...
is that the same IFS who get debunked when they comment on Brexit??
 
Hacker Khan said:
The Labour Manifesto makes the mistake of being honest and saying that the only viable and sustainable way to fund future spending increases that all parties are promising is to raises taxes. This is not true, to fund future spending you can promise to lower taxes and then rely on a magic money tree. #factcheck
Click to expand...
The magic money tree often takes the form of a utility that belongs to the public ..
 
spongebob59 said:
Labours sh*t or bust manifesto

https://t.co/9IqX8DFX44?amp=1


Paul Johnson, head of the independent think-tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies, was stunned by the figures being quoted in the Labour manifesto.

He told ITV News Political Correspondent Daniel Hewitt that “it’s impossible to overstate just how extraordinary this manifesto in terms of the sheer scale of money being spent and raised through the tax system”.

Mr Johnson said: "Hundreds of billions of additional spending on investment, £80 billion plus per year on spending on day-to-day things; social security, spending on the NHS, students loans and so on. Matched by, supposedly, an £80 billion increase in tax.

"Now you can talk about tens, hundreds of billions of pounds... take it from me, these are vast numbers - enormous, colossal, in the context of anything we’ve seen in the last...ever...really.”

The IFS director said it was "simply not credible" to expect Labour to raise £80bn of tax revenue all from companies and people earning over £80,000 a year.

"You cannot raise that kind of money in our tax system without affecting individuals," said Mr Johnson.
Click to expand...

How much uncollected tax do we have from Amazon, Google, facebook etc ... did they quote a figure for this and how much tax they are going to have to pay ?
you know so we can understand where we stand as tax payers .. if it amounts to me shelling out another £2 / week .. I can manage that, but I will have to double check.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top