General Election 2017

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 137 of 450 < 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 >

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 May 17 12.24pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 Agree...some of the ideas they come up with are great...it's just the funding that's always the stumbling block.. I'd advise that you look at the link nickgusset posted a page or two ago in this thread. Labour have the better record, comfortably, when in comes to public sector borrowing. It's incredible that the Tories can keep saying the opposite is true when the figures simply do not back them up.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 11 May 17 12.24pm

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by Lyons550

Agree...some of the ideas they come up with are great...it's just the funding that's always the stumbling block..

I'd advise that you look at the link nickgusset posted a page or two ago in this thread.

Labour have the better record, comfortably, when in comes to public sector borrowing. It's incredible that the Tories can keep saying the opposite is true when the figures simply do not back them up.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 May 17 12.26pm
Originally posted by Part Time James If there was an unlimited pot of gold then all of the parties could promise the earth and it'd be difficult to choose. But there isn't, so there's this dilemma: Do you vote for someone that isn't promising the earth on the basis that their policies might seem more feasible or Do you vote for someone promising lots of brilliant things that, let's face it, we all want no matter what our political leanings BUT with a voice in the back of your mind telling you that the manifesto is unlikely to be deliverable? I'm not an economist, so I can't say that they've definitely got it wrong, but my confidence in the "good guys" was low to begin with and is getting increasingly lower. I can assure you Labour's plans are more economically sound than those of the Tories. Empirically and Theoretically.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 11 May 17 12.26pm

Originally posted by Part Time James

If there was an unlimited pot of gold then all of the parties could promise the earth and it'd be difficult to choose.

But there isn't, so there's this dilemma:

Do you vote for someone that isn't promising the earth on the basis that their policies might seem more feasible or
Do you vote for someone promising lots of brilliant things that, let's face it, we all want no matter what our political leanings BUT with a voice in the back of your mind telling you that the manifesto is unlikely to be deliverable?

I'm not an economist, so I can't say that they've definitely got it wrong, but my confidence in the "good guys" was low to begin with and is getting increasingly lower.

I can assure you Labour's plans are more economically sound than those of the Tories. Empirically and Theoretically.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 May 17 12.27pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle I'd advise that you look at the link nickgusset posted a page or two ago in this thread. Labour have the better record, comfortably, when in comes to public sector borrowing. It's incredible that the Tories can keep saying the opposite is true when the figures simply do not back them up. It's not incredible when you look around the media who conspire to keep the misinformation flowing.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 11 May 17 12.27pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I'd advise that you look at the link nickgusset posted a page or two ago in this thread.

Labour have the better record, comfortably, when in comes to public sector borrowing. It's incredible that the Tories can keep saying the opposite is true when the figures simply do not back them up.

It's not incredible when you look around the media who conspire to keep the misinformation flowing.

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 11 May 17 12.41pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman .... Funding so many of them so close together. Pretty much...and then that begs the question as to why they're in the manifesto...populist politics no more no less...the joke being that even when trying to be popular it seems to be backfiring on pretty much anyone other than party members... concentrate on one core issue and prove that it can be funded as well as how it will make a real difference to society. Then when that's dealt with come up with something else that needs addressing. Too many promises mean spreading resources (as they currently stand) too thinly and the liklihood of no real progress being made. The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 11 May 17 12.41pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

.... Funding so many of them so close together.

Pretty much...and then that begs the question as to why they're in the manifesto...populist politics no more no less...the joke being that even when trying to be popular it seems to be backfiring on pretty much anyone other than party members... concentrate on one core issue and prove that it can be funded as well as how it will make a real difference to society.

Then when that's dealt with come up with something else that needs addressing.

Too many promises mean spreading resources (as they currently stand) too thinly and the liklihood of no real progress being made.

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 11 May 17 12.44pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle I'd advise that you look at the link nickgusset posted a page or two ago in this thread. Labour have the better record, comfortably, when in comes to public sector borrowing. It's incredible that the Tories can keep saying the opposite is true when the figures simply do not back them up. You are of course making the huge assumption that I believe in what the Tories say as well...histrionics only show you whats passed...not what's in front. You can keep looking behind if you want...but mind the obstacles ahead as you do so... I read the article...its a good read...but its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that and you become sick. As I said previously (perhaps you couldnt see/read it from your lofty perch) I think Labour have a lot of great ideas...and yes over time ANY of them could be funded and implemented; however not ALL at once. Its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that, and you become sick. You go through the sweetshop slowly and the effects wont be half as bad. Edited by Lyons550 (11 May 2017 12.51pm) The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 11 May 17 12.44pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I'd advise that you look at the link nickgusset posted a page or two ago in this thread.

Labour have the better record, comfortably, when in comes to public sector borrowing. It's incredible that the Tories can keep saying the opposite is true when the figures simply do not back them up.

You are of course making the huge assumption that I believe in what the Tories say as well...histrionics only show you whats passed...not what's in front.

You can keep looking behind if you want...but mind the obstacles ahead as you do so...

I read the article...its a good read...but its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that and you become sick.

As I said previously (perhaps you couldnt see/read it from your lofty perch) I think Labour have a lot of great ideas...and yes over time ANY of them could be funded and implemented; however not ALL at once.

Its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that, and you become sick. You go through the sweetshop slowly and the effects wont be half as bad.

Edited by Lyons550 (11 May 2017 12.51pm)

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James 11 May 17 12.49pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle I can assure you Labour's plans are more economically sound than those of the Tories. Empirically and Theoretically. It must be a bit disappointing for you then that they aren't assuring the general public that that's the case. Not disputing what you're saying though, I do respect you speak with significantly more authority on the subject than myself.
Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James

11 May 17 12.49pm

Send a Private Message to Part Time James

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I can assure you Labour's plans are more economically sound than those of the Tories. Empirically and Theoretically.

It must be a bit disappointing for you then that they aren't assuring the general public that that's the case. Not disputing what you're saying though, I do respect you speak with significantly more authority on the subject than myself.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 May 17 1.03pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 Pretty much...and then that begs the question as to why they're in the manifesto...populist politics no more no less...the joke being that even when trying to be popular it seems to be backfiring on pretty much anyone other than party members... concentrate on one core issue and prove that it can be funded as well as how it will make a real difference to society. Then when that's dealt with come up with something else that needs addressing. Too many promises mean spreading resources (as they currently stand) too thinly and the liklihood of no real progress being made. We can't really judge until we see the actual (not leaked) manifesto that Mcdonnell has said will be fully costed. Is it worth arguing about it until then?
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 11 May 17 1.03pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

Then when that's dealt with come up with something else that needs addressing.

Too many promises mean spreading resources (as they currently stand) too thinly and the liklihood of no real progress being made.

We can't really judge until we see the actual (not leaked) manifesto that Mcdonnell has said will be fully costed. Is it worth arguing about it until then?

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 11 May 17 1.22pm
Originally posted by nickgusset We can't really judge until we see the actual (not leaked) manifesto that Mcdonnell has said will be fully costed. Is it worth arguing about it until then? It may well be 'fully costed', but will the people he inteeds to take the money from hang around for it to be taken. Remember Healey's 83% top rate income tax and 98% tax on unearned income. People and businesses buggered off (including the Rolling Stones) - those who stayed pulled every trick in the book to avoid paying. As is often the case, when you raise taxes to punitive levels, the actual revenue income falls. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 11 May 17 1.22pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

We can't really judge until we see the actual (not leaked) manifesto that Mcdonnell has said will be fully costed. Is it worth arguing about it until then?

It may well be 'fully costed', but will the people he inteeds to take the money from hang around for it to be taken. Remember Healey's 83% top rate income tax and 98% tax on unearned income. People and businesses buggered off (including the Rolling Stones) - those who stayed pulled every trick in the book to avoid paying. As is often the case, when you raise taxes to punitive levels, the actual revenue income falls.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 11 May 17 1.43pm
Before Blair and after Blair a lot of people felt/still feel uncomfortable voting Labour for whatever reason. But with the media on his side and a non-threatening aura (sorry Iraq, we fell for that one) he was entirely electable. And he had people around him that commanded a smidgen of respect: Cook, Mowlam, Field, that woman with the big teeth, Cunningham and even Prescott. Corbyn and his acolytes - no matter how well meaning he is and sincere - just don't come across as a commanding group as the above did. Nor do The Tories but, unfortunately, they hold the reins and the only team in opposition is of League 1 level. Guy Fawkes - we need you. NOW! Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 11 May 17 1.43pm

Before Blair and after Blair a lot of people felt/still feel uncomfortable voting Labour for whatever reason. But with the media on his side and a non-threatening aura (sorry Iraq, we fell for that one) he was entirely electable. And he had people around him that commanded a smidgen of respect: Cook, Mowlam, Field, that woman with the big teeth, Cunningham and even Prescott.

Corbyn and his acolytes - no matter how well meaning he is and sincere - just don't come across as a commanding group as the above did. Nor do The Tories but, unfortunately, they hold the reins and the only team in opposition is of League 1 level.

Guy Fawkes - we need you. NOW!

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 May 17 1.48pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 You are of course making the huge assumption that I believe in what the Tories say as well...histrionics only show you whats passed...not what's in front. You can keep looking behind if you want...but mind the obstacles ahead as you do so... I read the article...its a good read...but its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that and you become sick. As I said previously (perhaps you couldnt see/read it from your lofty perch) I think Labour have a lot of great ideas...and yes over time ANY of them could be funded and implemented; however not ALL at once. Its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that, and you become sick. You go through the sweetshop slowly and the effects wont be half as bad. Edited by Lyons550 (11 May 2017 12.51pm) Past experience often informs what is likely to happen in the future. Why don't you think their policies could all be implemented over the course of a parliament, or at least set in motion? I'm not sure their manifesto claims they will do it all on day one then sit back and see how it goes. A lot of these policies will require long terms efforts, but that doesn't mean they aren't feasible or worthwhile. The point is that Keynesian economics, over the past 70 years has resulted in less borrowing than neo-classical or neo-liberal economics. There is a clear choice between the two in this election and history is quite clear which is more effective, delivers fairer results and healthier public finances.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 11 May 17 1.48pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

You are of course making the huge assumption that I believe in what the Tories say as well...histrionics only show you whats passed...not what's in front.

You can keep looking behind if you want...but mind the obstacles ahead as you do so...

I read the article...its a good read...but its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that and you become sick.

Its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that, and you become sick. You go through the sweetshop slowly and the effects wont be half as bad.

Edited by Lyons550 (11 May 2017 12.51pm)

Past experience often informs what is likely to happen in the future.

Why don't you think their policies could all be implemented over the course of a parliament, or at least set in motion? I'm not sure their manifesto claims they will do it all on day one then sit back and see how it goes.

A lot of these policies will require long terms efforts, but that doesn't mean they aren't feasible or worthwhile.

The point is that Keynesian economics, over the past 70 years has resulted in less borrowing than neo-classical or neo-liberal economics. There is a clear choice between the two in this election and history is quite clear which is more effective, delivers fairer results and healthier public finances.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 May 17 1.51pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 Pretty much...and then that begs the question as to why they're in the manifesto...populist politics no more no less...the joke being that even when trying to be popular it seems to be backfiring on pretty much anyone other than party members... concentrate on one core issue and prove that it can be funded as well as how it will make a real difference to society. Then when that's dealt with come up with something else that needs addressing. Too many promises mean spreading resources (as they currently stand) too thinly and the liklihood of no real progress being made. I for one am quite keen to know what each party plans on more than one issue. I'm interested in healthcare, housing, education, trade, the economy, Brexit, social rights, equality, defence. It's right that any party covers each of these (and more) in their manifesto, the document that gives a mandate for the next 5 years.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 11 May 17 1.51pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

Then when that's dealt with come up with something else that needs addressing.

Too many promises mean spreading resources (as they currently stand) too thinly and the liklihood of no real progress being made.

I for one am quite keen to know what each party plans on more than one issue. I'm interested in healthcare, housing, education, trade, the economy, Brexit, social rights, equality, defence. It's right that any party covers each of these (and more) in their manifesto, the document that gives a mandate for the next 5 years.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 May 17 1.52pm
Originally posted by Part Time James It must be a bit disappointing for you then that they aren't assuring the general public that that's the case. Not disputing what you're saying though, I do respect you speak with significantly more authority on the subject than myself. Extremely disappointing!
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 11 May 17 1.52pm

Originally posted by Part Time James

Extremely disappointing!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 137 of 450 < 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors