That things are not quite as bad as the recent historical highs is a good thing. That it's still nowhere near where it needs to be after a decade amid promises it would be all be sorted in 5 years is bad. Comparing with the rest of the world is vital because you need to see how you are doing in comparison - if a world depression was giving everyone a bad time then blame is not on anyone in particular for failing to improve, if you're debt levels are on a par with 3rd world & war torn countries, then that shows you that things are not at all good.

 

I didn't realise America was a third world country. ;)

I didn't realise America was a third world country. ;)

 

hey you read the bit just below United Kingdom! :lol: Yes the US debt levels were eye-wateringly huge. I mean, think of the biggest debt levels you can possibly imagine, and then treble it. You can thank George Dubya Bush for that, Obama spent 8 years having to work on it.

hey you read the bit just below United Kingdom! :lol:

 

Yes the US debt levels were eye-wateringly huge. I mean, think of the biggest debt levels you can possibly imagine, and then treble it. You can thank George Dubya Bush for that, Obama spent 8 years having to work on it.

 

You see, I do read some of your references. :teresa:

o

Seriously though, it shows that high levels of debt do not necessarily mean a failing economy. Also, how is Obama working on the levels of US debt, any different from the Tories working on ours? :unsure:

Someone didn't think this one through... :lol:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/f...-brexit-posters

You see, I do read some of your references. :teresa:

o

Seriously though, it shows that high levels of debt do not necessarily mean a failing economy. Also, how is Obama working on the levels of US debt, any different from the Tories working on ours? :unsure:

 

It wasn't significantly different initially. Both Brown & Bush started the ball rolling on that one, and Obama & Cameron followed through in their own ways - Obama struggled to get Republican support for social policies which would have tempered the downturn effects, and the Tories out-bid Labour in persuading the electorate that massive cutbacks were needed, again without a policy of support to those most affected. Once the Libdems were out the way, they went full-on mad attack in fact until the last election drummed in that they had messed up, and here we are now, both countries reaping the rewards of those policies.

It wasn't significantly different initially. Both Brown & Bush started the ball rolling on that one, and Obama & Cameron followed through in their own ways - Obama struggled to get Republican support for social policies which would have tempered the downturn effects, and the Tories out-bid Labour in persuading the electorate that massive cutbacks were needed, again without a policy of support to those most affected. Once the Libdems were out the way, they went full-on mad attack in fact until the last election drummed in that they had messed up

 

Most parties wouldn't mind a +5.5% vote share 'mess up'. :teresa:

Most parties wouldn't mind a +5.5% vote share 'mess up'. :teresa:

 

Yes but they were facing Jeremy Corbyn and still lost their majority..... :teresa:

Yes but they were facing Jeremy Corbyn and still lost their majority..... :teresa:

 

Or you could say, despite the Tories troubles, Corbyn *still* couldn't win... :teresa:

Okay, who on their "Most Unexpected News of 2019" bingo card had - "Cuddly nature charity WWF is a paramilitary organisation?"

https://news.sky.com/story/momentum-fined-f...al-law-11656570

 

Momentum: Corbyn-supporting group fined for 'multiple breaches' of electoral law

 

******************************

 

I guess it's not just Leave groups who are guilty of this, then, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they are *all* at it... :unsure:

The difference is that Momentum have been found guilty of accounting errors, not overspending. Those accounting errors cannot possibly have affected any election result.

 

Try again.

The difference is that Momentum have been found guilty of accounting errors, not overspending. Those accounting errors cannot possibly have affected any election result.

 

Try again.

 

'Accounting errors' :rolleyes:

 

Yeah, right - like you'd believe that if Leave tried that one... :P

'Accounting errors' :rolleyes:

 

Yeah, right - like you'd believe that if Leave tried that one... :P

They didn’t overspend. They have been fined for not accounting for everything correctly. Surely you can get the difference.

They didn’t overspend. They have been fined for not accounting for everything correctly. Surely you can get the difference.

 

There *is* a difference, but I just don't assign it the same level of importance as you do. And as I've said repeatedly, there's no evidence it made a decisive difference to the result.

There *is* a difference, but I just don't assign it the same level of importance as you do. And as I've said repeatedly, there's no evidence it made a decisive difference to the result.

So why did they overspend if they thought that the money would make no difference? If they went ahead and spent the money anyway, doesn't that make them totally unsuitable as custodians of the public purse?

So why did they overspend if they thought that the money would make no difference? If they went ahead and spent the money anyway, doesn't that make them totally unsuitable as custodians of the public purse?

 

It might, except they weren't spending public money on it - unlike the taxpayer-aided Remain campaign. I assume you're not going to argue that that the gov'ts EU referendum leaflet had *no* effect, merely because it was issued before the official campaign start date?

It might, except they weren't spending public money on it - unlike the taxpayer-aided Remain campaign. I assume you're not going to argue that that the gov'ts EU referendum leaflet had *no* effect, merely because it was issued before the official campaign start date?

The Remain campaign was not taxpayer-funded.

 

If the government leaflet had made a significant difference, you might have expected Remain voters to quote from it when justifying their vote. If anyone did, I didn't come across it. The same cannot be said of slogans in the Leave leaflets and the nonsense contained in the dodgy Facebook adverts.

 

Besides, the law is the law. Leave broke it, Remain didn't. The cost of the government leaflet falls into the same category as the tabloid front pages. The only difference is that the tabloid front pages, partly through endless repetition, were more effective.

The Remain campaign was not taxpayer-funded.

 

If the government leaflet had made a significant difference, you might have expected Remain voters to quote from it when justifying their vote. If anyone did, I didn't come across it. The same cannot be said of slogans in the Leave leaflets and the nonsense contained in the dodgy Facebook adverts.

 

Besides, the law is the law. Leave broke it, Remain didn't. The cost of the government leaflet falls into the same category as the tabloid front pages. The only difference is that the tabloid front pages, partly through endless repetition, were more effective.

 

 

...and like the Leave campaign many tabloids are paid for by foreign or foreign-dwelling billionaires with dodgy democratic habits and agendas to pervert the course of British democracy.

The Remain campaign was not taxpayer-funded.

 

IT didn't have to be - virtually the whole establishment was behind it.

IT didn't have to be - virtually the whole establishment was behind it.

The Telegraph? Various Old Etonians? Half the Cabinet?