Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Ah, must have missed that xD
    Sacked from the green party we mean

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Sacked from the green party we mean

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Do you not want £500 or are you just accepting no other proper budget has been as inaccurate?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Do you not want £500 or are you just accepting no other proper budget has been as inaccurate?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How about the introduction of the ground rent tax that was much worse than mine, and the one that the tories later increased to 60% or something, there you go.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    How about the introduction of the ground rent tax that was much worse than mine, and the one that the tories later increased to 60% or something, there you go.
    So you're saying one thing badly wrong is worse than only one thing not badly wrong?

    Also, dates rates and costing?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you're saying one thing badly wrong is worse than only one thing not badly wrong?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There's more though, we've had budgets closing major governmental departments, the DfT is one that springs to mind. Why don't you lay into one of the past budgets the way you laid into mine and then you'll see that mine isn't, relatively, that bad. I ****ed up the costing of the housebuilding plans granted, but I did what I could to include as many departments as possible into the budget.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    There's more though, we've had budgets closing major governmental departments, the DfT is one that springs to mind. Why don't you lay into one of the past budgets the way you laid into mine and then you'll see that mine isn't, relatively, that bad. I ****ed up the costing of the housebuilding plans granted, but I did what I could to include as many departments as possible into the budget.
    You ****ed up all the costing. You can close a department as a bad idea, but if costed fairly accurately a well costed bad idea is better than a poorly costed bad idea, or even a poorly costed good idea.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You ****ed up all the costing. You can close a department as a bad idea, but if costed fairly accurately a well costed bad idea is better than a poorly costed bad idea, or even a poorly costed good idea.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's up for dispute. There was one major error as far as I'm concerned, and that was underestimating the deficit by £18bn thanks to the way that I costed the housebuilding plans. The income tax I worked out based on the percentiles from 2013 as they were the only ones that I could get, I then amended them due to the £9 an hour minimum wage or whatever, and worked them out that way. The changes to welfare were also properly costed and I hadn't seen one thing from you to make it seem otherwise. In my role as energy secretary, my plans were also properly costed there (granted, the plans themselves were little "out-there" but this is make-belief), The income tax changes and the welfare reform were mine to cost, but I had to include all areas of the government into the budget, which is hard when you have plenty of offices that weren't active enough. And when you said that I was shuffling you off to other people, as chancellor is was not my job to speak for the NES, or any other policy that comes from someone else's department.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    That's up for dispute. There was one major error as far as I'm concerned, and that was underestimating the deficit by £18bn thanks to the way that I costed the housebuilding plans. The income tax I worked out based on the percentiles from 2013 as they were the only ones that I could get, I then amended them due to the £9 an hour minimum wage or whatever, and worked them out that way. The changes to welfare were also properly costed and I hadn't seen one thing from you to make it seem otherwise. In my role as energy secretary, my plans were also properly costed there (granted, the plans themselves were little "out-there" but this is make-belief), The income tax changes and the welfare reform were mine to cost, but I had to include all areas of the government into the budget, which is hard when you have plenty of offices that weren't active enough. And when you said that I was shuffling you off to other people, as chancellor is was not my job to speak for the NES, or any other policy that comes from someone else's department.
    If you hadn't ****ed up the costings then how come they could be recalculated so differently to your own figures? And if the whole thing had been costed well then how come figures could be shown to be truly absurd, for instance each centre in the education SoI having a maintenance budget over double that of a whole LA? If the costing is so on point then how come the deficit was understated to the tune of £100bn, or being a bit less harsh £60bn given that there was £40bn added from the poorly costed amendment to the poorly costed ATA to be rejected (and the original Act repealed)?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If you hadn't ****ed up the costings then how come they could be recalculated so differently to your own figures? And if the whole thing had been costed well then how come figures could be shown to be truly absurd, for instance each centre in the education SoI having a maintenance budget over double that of a whole LA? If the costing is so on point then how come the deficit was understated to the tune of £100bn, or being a bit less harsh £60bn given that there was £40bn added from the poorly costed amendment to the poorly costed ATA to be rejected (and the original Act repealed)?
    He has admitted his mistake so I don't see why we can't move on.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    He has admitted his mistake so I don't see why we can't move on.
    No he hasn't, he has admitted he got one thing wrong, one in many
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    That's up for dispute. There was one major error as far as I'm concerned, and that was underestimating the deficit by £18bn thanks to the way that I costed the housebuilding plans. The income tax I worked out based on the percentiles from 2013 as they were the only ones that I could get, I then amended them due to the £9 an hour minimum wage or whatever, and worked them out that way. The changes to welfare were also properly costed and I hadn't seen one thing from you to make it seem otherwise. In my role as energy secretary, my plans were also properly costed there (granted, the plans themselves were little "out-there" but this is make-belief), The income tax changes and the welfare reform were mine to cost, but I had to include all areas of the government into the budget, which is hard when you have plenty of offices that weren't active enough. And when you said that I was shuffling you off to other people, as chancellor is was not my job to speak for the NES, or any other policy that comes from someone else's department.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If you hadn't ****ed up the costings then how come they could be recalculated so differently to your own figures? And if the whole thing had been costed well then how come figures could be shown to be truly absurd, for instance each centre in the education SoI having a maintenance budget over double that of a whole LA? If the costing is so on point then how come the deficit was understated to the tune of £100bn, or being a bit less harsh £60bn given that there was £40bn added from the poorly costed amendment to the poorly costed ATA to be rejected (and the original Act repealed)?
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    He has admitted his mistake so I don't see why we can't move on.
    Bit late now but if you guys are going to discuss this further please do it in the bar, this discussion seems to be losing its relevance to Labour.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So, when is James222 going to be arrested live on national television and executed for his most serious crimes?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    So, when is James222 going to be arrested live on national television and executed for his most serious crimes?
    Hopefully soon.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    In your manifesto for the election, you talk about leading a minority government and what you have achieved but what parts of your last manifesto were you not able to deliver?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Matrix123)
    In your manifesto for the election, you talk about leading a minority government and what you have achieved but what parts of your last manifesto were you not able to deliver?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Most of it. They failed to cut VAT or reintroduce the 50p rate, they didn't even bother trying to reintroduce the 10p rate. They also failed to introduce a Land Value Tax, largely on account of having implemented it in the previous term, but also had it repealed late this term by a massive margin with only three members voting against the repeal, at least one voting in favour and the majority abstaining. They did not even try renationalising the railways and did nothing to "purge the NHS of private interests"

    They failed to cut stamp duty, and many did not vote in favour of abolishing right to buy

    Failed to bring about HoL reforms and didn't even bother trying to waste money on an elected head of state

    Finally they failed in establishing a National Education Service, I believe largely rejected because the proposals put forwards already exist, and the trend of dreadful costing (and arrogance about it) continued.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Most of it. They failed to cut VAT or reintroduce the 50p rate, they didn't even bother trying to reintroduce the 10p rate. They also failed to introduce a Land Value Tax, largely on account of having implemented it in the previous term, but also had it repealed late this term by a massive margin with only three members voting against the repeal, at least one voting in favour and the majority abstaining. They did not even try renationalising the railways and did nothing to "purge the NHS of private interests"

    They failed to cut stamp duty, and many did not vote in favour of abolishing right to buy

    Failed to bring about HoL reforms and didn't even bother trying to waste money on an elected head of state

    Finally they failed in establishing a National Education Service, I believe largely rejected because the proposals put forwards already exist, and the trend of dreadful costing (and arrogance about it) continued.
    Thank you.
    Regarding their failure to cut VAT and bring about the HoL reforms, do you know how close they were to achieving this?

    Would you also please care to explain the ways in which they have made a move to clean energy as well as the impacts of their introduction of enabling trade unions to use online voting?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Matrix123)
    Thank you.
    Regarding their failure to cut VAT and bring about the HoL reforms, do you know how close they were to achieving this?

    Would you also please care to explain the ways in which they have made a move to clean energy as well as the impacts of their introduction of enabling trade unions to use online voting?
    HoL was 22 Aye 27 No

    VAT was part of a finance bill that I think was 23 Aye (most of the left of the house) to 25 No (the right and a couple of centrists)

    As for the online voting, it's hard to tell as there are too many factors involved. Logically it would lead to increased turnout for the various votes, whether this reduces the number of strikes due to the more apathetic probably being less for it in the first place, who knows, and given that it runs into the problem that digital voting has there will be greater chances of fraud in the voting.

    As for the energy I recall it was tidal wave and nuclear in about equal measures if the figures are to be trusted for I think it is a total of 30% of energy demand, again, if the figures are trusted.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    HoL was 22 Aye 27 No

    VAT was part of a finance bill that I think was 23 Aye (most of the left of the house) to 25 No (the right and a couple of centrists)

    As for the online voting, it's hard to tell as there are too many factors involved. Logically it would lead to increased turnout for the various votes, whether this reduces the number of strikes due to the more apathetic probably being less for it in the first place, who knows, and given that it runs into the problem that digital voting has there will be greater chances of fraud in the voting.

    As for the energy I recall it was tidal wave and nuclear in about equal measures if the figures are to be trusted for I think it is a total of 30% of energy demand, again, if the figures are trusted.
    Thanks again, so I guess they were very close with actually cutting the VAT at the time.

    Fair enough. That's true about the likelihood of greater chances of fraud. Are you a member of the conservative party? They've said they'd make "further measures to protect digital privacy". Do you know if any of this could impact the use of this online voting in any way, or is this more a case of waiting for the issue to arise and finding out how varying parties react then?

    Oh right. How does this contrast to the Greens and did Labour win by a large number of seats when proposing their move to clean energy?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Matrix123)
    Thanks again, so I guess they were very close with actually cutting the VAT at the time.

    Fair enough. That's true about the likelihood of greater chances of fraud. Are you a member of the conservative party? They've said they'd make "further measures to protect digital privacy". Do you know if any of this could impact the use of this online voting in any way, or is this more a case of waiting for the issue to arise and finding out how varying parties react then?

    Oh right. How does this contrast to the Greens and did Labour win by a large number of seats when proposing their move to clean energy?
    The vote on the finance bill was lost before it was even started given it would have added over £40bn to a deficit that already sat at £100bn and several government members were voting against it.I see no reason at this time why it would impact online voting, no.The energy proposals passed 25-11 with 8 abstentions.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The vote on the finance bill was lost before it was even started given it would have added over £40bn to a deficit that already sat at £100bn and several government members were voting against it.I see no reason at this time why it would impact online voting, no.The energy proposals passed 25-11 with 8 abstentions.
    I see. That's a rather good win I guess. Do you know how Labour's clean energy compares to its use by the Greens at all?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2018
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.