I don't mean to bang on about this, but the Tory manifesto didn't even try and cost its pledges.

 

Which was part of the complacency I referred to - though I can't imagine anyone believed they'd pay more taxes under the Tories than they would have under Labours proposals... :unsure:

Edited October 10, 20177 yr by vidcapper

Sorry, I didn't spot that.

 

Mind you, I don't know how blame could be definitively placed on Brexit? :unsure:

 

No, the flaw here is in your interpretation of what I said

 

Should be fairly easy to spot what Brexit has caused once the figures arrive. They will just be compared like for like with the rest of the world before Brexit and post-Brexit.

 

You said (I paraphrase) that older dying Tories will be replaced by ageing younger people with mortgages and children helping convert them towards the right in politics. You implied that the inevitable move towards the younger generation (heavily left-wing) somehow wouldn't translate into lower support for Brexit. I showed that people vote according to how they are feeling at any given time, and their attitude towards the current government. I think I proved fairly conclusively that point and you choose to think that Brexit-Remainers somehow will be converted towards seeing the Leaver-Light.

 

I maintain that in fact that is even less likely than people voting out the current government at the first opportunity, especially if the economy goes tits up. You can try and blame the EU (and I 100% know that all the most rabid Brexiteers will try their best to continue to try and blame the EU for everything under the sun for the rest of their natural lives even if we have nothing to do with them, in trade, politics, or shape of bananas) but the electorate won't give a shit if they end up much much worse off, whatever the cause. You can only hope it's a roaring success, cos anything less won't change people's views one iota.

There is a flaw in your theory though...

 

No-one benefits from rigged polls, as an planning made on the basis of them is bound to be flawed. It's the old GIGO scenario. It's likely the Tory GE campaign would have been very different if they'd have known from the start Labour were almost neck & neck with them.

If Labour had been neck and neck with the Tories in April, there wouldn't have been an election.

I just *told* you the heory of bandwagoning and the effects of polling manipulation, as we saw in the last election and wih Hillary's campaign.

 

There is no use in debating with a closed off idiot.

If Labour had been neck and neck with the Tories in April, there wouldn't have been an election.

 

Well, there *is* that. :P

 

I just *told* you the heory of bandwagoning and the effects of polling manipulation, as we saw in the last election and wih Hillary's campaign.

 

There is no use in debating with a closed off idiot.

 

Yet I still keep trying to debate with you... :teresa:

Which was part of the complacency I referred to - though I can't imagine anyone believed they'd pay more taxes under the Tories than they would have under Labours proposals... :unsure:

Did you miss that whole "dementia tax" thing?

OTOH, in the middle of a downturn you need to hit the brake rather than the accelerator, even if it makes you unpopular i.e. austerity.

Which is the quickest way to bugger an economy. If at the same time as families all around the country deciding they need to cut their cloth and spend less the government also decides it needs to spend less, that has a cataclysmic impact - everyone is spending less in the economy, the government has probably just fired a lot of people or at the very least stopped a lot of contracts or stopped buying things that pay a lot of people's wages in the private sector, which in turn depresses consumer confidence and means people are spending less money - which accelerates the depression. That's the exact time you need the government to step in and spend more, and then cut its cloth in the good times.

Did you miss that whole "dementia tax" thing?

 

I was referring to the overall tax bill, not on a person by person basis - I assumed that was too obvious to need stating. :unsure:

Which is the quickest way to bugger an economy. If at the same time as families all around the country deciding they need to cut their cloth and spend less the government also decides it needs to spend less, that has a cataclysmic impact - everyone is spending less in the economy, the government has probably just fired a lot of people or at the very least stopped a lot of contracts or stopped buying things that pay a lot of people's wages in the private sector, which in turn depresses consumer confidence and means people are spending less money - which accelerates the depression. That's the exact time you need the government to step in and spend more, and then cut its cloth in the good times.

 

Ah, but artificial 'good times' created by taxing/borrowing just store up even more problems in the long run. You cannot spend more than you earn for ever.

Ah, but artificial 'good times' created by taxing/borrowing just store up even more problems in the long run. You cannot spend more than you earn for ever.

Since WWII there have been more years when a Labour government has run a surplus that when Tory governments have done so. So, your point is...?

Since WWII there have been more years when a Labour government has run a surplus that when Tory governments have done so. So, your point is...?

 

What kind of surplus do you refer to?

What kind of surplus do you refer to?

Very simple - income exceeding expenditure.

Very simple - income exceeding expenditure.

 

I've found several URL's covering this topic, but I can't establish which one matches your claim. :unsure:

 

Those I have seen, suggest the correlation is closer to worldwide economic performance, than to the party in power at the time..

I've found several URL's covering this topic, but I can't establish which one matches your claim. :unsure:

 

Those I have seen, suggest the correlation is closer to worldwide economic performance, than to the party in power at the time..

You mean the worldwide economic performance that led to the crash in 2007-8? Funny how the Tories always ignore that one.

 

Besides, I'm not convinced your assertion its true. It certainly isn't true for the early Blair years when they specifically budgeted for a surplus to reduce the debt they had inherited - the debt that had doubled in John Major's time as PM.

Ah, but artificial 'good times' created by taxing/borrowing just store up even more problems in the long run. You cannot spend more than you earn for ever.

It's not an artificial 'good time', it's alleviating the severity of a bad time to stop it spiralling and crashing the economy. Doesn't really store up problems in the long run to put the economy on stabilisers at the worst times and pay it down in the good.

 

And as it goes, you kind of can spend more than you earn forever as a nation's budget goes. France has run a deficit every year since the 60s. France still has a larger economy than we do. Households can't benefit from inflation as a way of reducing debt all that often: countries can.

There is no concinxing vidcapper, he is a lost cause lost to the dailymail and aun.

 

Anyway what is the relation between council and local elections and teneral elections?

 

In recent local elections Labour have been grtting like 56% of the vote with the Tory vote collapsing in places.

No firm conclusions can be drawn from local by-election results although it is always interesting to look at any trends.

 

Since the start of the year the Lib Dems have been the big gainers in terms of seats. However, it is likely that a lot of those seats are long-held seats lost in the coalition years. In the immediate post-coalition period the Lib Dems continued to do very badly in areas where their support had never been that good.There are now signs that it is picking up again even in those areas.

 

Labour have made some gains but have lost almost as many. Not surprisingly, the Tories are the main losers. UKIP haven't defended any seats in by-elections but, of course, they did manage to lose every single one of the County seats they defended in May.

There is no concinxing vidcapper, he is a lost cause lost to the dailymail and aun.

 

Anyway what is the relation between council and local elections and teneral elections?

 

In recent local elections Labour have been grtting like 56% of the vote with the Tory vote collapsing in places.

 

I never read The 'aun' ;)

 

As for the Mail - I've mentioned more than once that I only started reading it 7-8 years ago, so it hardly *formed* my political beliefs, it just reflects them more closely than the other papers do. I just have to remember to look past the more extreme of their rhetoric to see the underlying story.

 

In that respect, it's no different from others here choosing the Guardian (or whichever).

It is MUCH worse, literally spewing the propaganda of the day from Murdoch's beain.

 

It is completely biased.

 

The Guardian has a left wing slant and that's it. Not even left wing enough for me soooo

It is MUCH worse, literally spewing the propaganda of the day from Murdoch's beain.

 

I guess you missed this part 'I just have to remember to look past the more extreme of their rhetoric to see the underlying story.'