This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Badger11 Beckenham 24 Nov 19 9.48am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
All politicians are liars but today's Labour really take the biscuit. They prey on the vulnerable with lies of money. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Nov 2019 8.01am) I just found out that this £58bn pledge isn't even in the Labour Manifesto why not? It's hardly something new or an insignificant amount. Or does this just mean that as it's not in the manifesto Labour can quietly drop it if they get elected?
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
chris123 hove actually 24 Nov 19 10.00am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
I just found out that this £58bn pledge isn't even in the Labour Manifesto why not? It's hardly something new or an insignificant amount. Or does this just mean that as it's not in the manifesto Labour can quietly drop it if they get elected? I wonder if someone looked at the polls and said "I know!".
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Deleted11 24 Nov 19 12.45pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by .TUX.
Since the end of Bretton Woods in 1971 all currency has become 'fiat', ie backed by nothing of real value. Which is why i don't vote. You are right. However, i lean more on the side of having a gold standard is outdated. The Euro is pretty much a currency on the gold standard, at least until Draghi took over at the ECB and only one country benefitted from that. Bringing this back to the election. The real problem here isn't gvnt debt, it is personal debt and what the Tories did was give all the money to keep the ponzi scheme going, when a better approach would have been to let the 'gambling' banking companies fail and give money to the people that are in debt as well as introducing stricter legislation on banks. After listening to all party leaders, I think I might not bother either.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Matov 24 Nov 19 1.29pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by chris123
I wonder if someone looked at the polls and said "I know!". LOL. Expect more of this to come because if what I am reading in some of the more detailed (and admittedly sad) analysis then Labour are in SERIOUS trouble. Now I have to accept that polling is a flawed science and would urge all the cavats around that but if what they are reporting from marginals that Labour have to hold, let alone the ones they need to win, then they are in the brown smelly stuff right up to their non-gendered little necks. Still struggling to get over the reality of the 2017 election where even on election day the majority of polls were still showing a clear win for May but they must have adjusted accordingly now and this all feels different. And Brexit. The crucial factor here. In 2017 Labour supported it, now they effectively do not. That is the perception. These b******s are going to become incredibly desperate. Be surprised by nothing now they offer.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 24 Nov 19 1.40pm | |
---|---|
John MacDonald on why the pension committent isn't in the manifesto and not funded Mr McDonnell said it would be funded by a "very special arrangement, a contingency, in the same way government in the past has dealt with matters in the past like this". I believe in plain English he means he hasn't got a clue. C'mon John £58bn you are either going to tax more or borrow it's not that hard to explain. How can you trust a chancellor who comes up with BS like this. He's not even bothering to pretend he has the answer.
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
chris123 hove actually 24 Nov 19 3.40pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
John MacDonald on why the pension committent isn't in the manifesto and not funded Mr McDonnell said it would be funded by a "very special arrangement, a contingency, in the same way government in the past has dealt with matters in the past like this". I believe in plain English he means he hasn't got a clue. C'mon John £58bn you are either going to tax more or borrow it's not that hard to explain. How can you trust a chancellor who comes up with BS like this. He's not even bothering to pretend he has the answer. £58 billion is more than we raise in Corporation tax in a year.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
cryrst The garden of England 24 Nov 19 4.16pm | |
---|---|
The optional 5p stamp created this. A full stamp was an option as well.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 24 Nov 19 5.56pm | |
---|---|
Just been speaking to my sister in law who is well up on this. It seems there are two groups of campaigners one that wants full compensation the other that would accept partial. I think most people when they understand the issues are sympathetic but £58bn stretches that sympathy. If the Tories have any sense they will look at offering some form of partial carrot.
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
chris123 hove actually 24 Nov 19 6.14pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
Just been speaking to my sister in law who is well up on this. It seems there are two groups of campaigners one that wants full compensation the other that would accept partial. I think most people when they understand the issues are sympathetic but £58bn stretches that sympathy. If the Tories have any sense they will look at offering some form of partial carrot. We need to be cautious - there are men my age or a bit younger who will get their pensions at 66 or 67 and not 65. Not as big a delta as the women, but we need to be careful - the thing changed because we're all living longer and 60 and 65 was no longer affordable.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 24 Nov 19 6.53pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by chris123
We need to be cautious - there are men my age or a bit younger who will get their pensions at 66 or 67 and not 65. Not as big a delta as the women, but we need to be careful - the thing changed because we're all living longer and 60 and 65 was no longer affordable. Including me if I was born a few months earlier I would retire at 67 not 65 so you are correct it impacts men as well but the jump for women was bigger. I think for them it went from 60 to 63 then to 65 then to 66 or 67 all in a few short years. It was the speed of the change that they are complaining about. If you are just starting work now the retirement age will be 70 or older assuming that there is anything left to collect. We should have moved to a system like the Australians. Its compulsory with an additional voluntary element. Everybody has an individual pot so you are not paying for the shirkers and can top up if you can afford it.
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Invalid user 2019 24 Nov 19 9.39pm | |
---|---|
Westminster Voting Intention: CON: 41% (-1) LAB: 30% (+2) LDM: 15% (+1) BXP: 5% (=) GRN: 3% (=) Via @Survation, 20-23 Nov. Changes w/ 13-16 Nov
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 25 Nov 19 7.34am | |
---|---|
My view on the Tory manifesto is steady as she goes. Boris has shown his true colours he is a one nation Tory not really as radical as some would suggest. This is the type of Manifesto that the clueless Theresa May should have delivered in 2017. It appeals to the faithful and gives the undecided a clear choice. Vote Tory and you get Brexit no big tax rises and money for the NHS. Or take a gamble and vote Labour for big tax and spending and god knows what on the EU. If you are risk averse it's a no brainer.
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.