QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by paul514)
A plan the IFS rubbished saying it wasn’t possible to get that amount of tax using their plans
Wrong. They said it was "unlikely" that the proposed taxation would raise sufficient revenue.
And remember that the IFS is just presenting an opinion, and they are an organisation that tends towards the free-market rather than the social justice economy. Other economists present different opinions, and some are critical of the IFS's free-market leanings, so I wouldn't take what they say as gospel. In fact, Robert Peston describes the way that many commentators simply accept whatever the IFS says as "extraordinary".
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by SteveyStack)
Yeah but their plans have been shunned by pretty much anyone with any understanding of economics.

Plus I don’t understand this logic as the torys are pretty much planning on spending more here and there so obviously this is viable.

Labour on the other hand need to prove their manifesto is (and can’t)
Labour is the only party to have presented a fully detailed costings document for their policies (the Grey Book).
Like so much anti-Labour rhetoric, your argument is based on misinformation.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by QE2)
Don't forget b0llocks like "cOrByN sUpPoRtS tHe IrA!"
hmmmm

https://twitter.com/SenseNumber7/sta...95695262076928

that link was deleted.... interesting timing

try this instead: https://twitter.com/GuyBarski/status...11656008892416
Last edited by the bear; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by QE2)
Labour is the only party to have presented a fully detailed costings document for their policies (the Grey Book).
Like so much anti-Labour rhetoric, your argument is based on misinformation.
To be fair though, the WASPI women's bill is going to take a bit more than extra 'efficiency savings' to fund. Spraying around another £60bn to get ahead of the news curve isn't a way to make you seem credible to floating voters.
0
reply
a.f.student
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by paul514)
Nothing to do with having no where near enough training places then? 😂
If we were to put more money into there being plenty of training places then the NHS could be better staffed. We need immigrants and more oppertunities to train.
2
reply
a.f.student
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by SteveyStack)
Yeah but their plans have been shunned by pretty much anyone with any understanding of economics.

Plus I don’t understand this logic as the torys are pretty much planning on spending more here and there so obviously this is viable.

Labour on the other hand need to prove their manifesto is (and can’t).
Wow. I'm quite impressed by the levels of twisted logic going on here.

So, to 'prove' a manifesto they would need to get into parliament? But you are obviously not going to give them a chance? You have successfully allowed the nhs to be privatized by putting Labour in a logically inescapable conundrum.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 weeks ago
#27
"Sorry, that page doesn't exist"
Just like the evidence for Corbyn being an IRA supporter.
Nicely done!
1
reply
t_omiw_a
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 weeks ago
#28
i love labour
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by Reality Check)
To be fair though, the WASPI women's bill is going to take a bit more than extra 'efficiency savings' to fund. Spraying around another £60bn to get ahead of the news curve isn't a way to make you seem credible to floating voters.
That isn't in the manifesto, so detailed costings aren't available in the Grey Book.
However, it does illustrate how Labour is the party of social justice rather than the party of "**** you, I'm alright Jack".
0
reply
Varss
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by robsole)
So essentially the Labour manifesto is a free for all help yourself to public funds situation.

- Free internet
- As many benefits as you want no cap
- Free dental
- Free this, free that

So who is going to pay for this? Yup the workers are going to have involuntarily fund all this. People have short memories of 2010 when the final thing Labour did in office was to leave a note saying 'sorry the money has all gone, good luck!' and we want these clowns back?

Anyone who works and pay tax and goes for Labour is like a turkey voting for Christmas. Why bother working when Labour disincentivises working to the point where you are better off on benefits than working so may as well stay at home watching sky all day rather than doing some graft.

They have got no solution to the age old complaint from Brits that 'immigrants are stealing our jobs'. Choosing not to work is somehow acceptable under Labour, why?

Essentially the end of the manifesto should read:

Labour

Britain - A country where only fools work!
Immigrants don't steal jobs. In fact empirical data shows they create jobs
1
reply
Varss
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by SteveyStack)
Yeah but their plans have been shunned by pretty much anyone with any understanding of economics.

Plus I don’t understand this logic as the torys are pretty much planning on spending more here and there so obviously this is viable.

Labour on the other hand need to prove their manifesto is (and can’t).
Couldn't be further from the truth. All think tank economists I've talked to support many policies such as taxes and minimum wage. Hell there are so many Cambridge economics fellows that support socialism, check Dr Jonathan Aldred
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 weeks ago
#32
Best post in this thread. I've been banging this drum for months. The people that complain about immigrants stealing jobs are the same people who choose not to work and sit on the dole, or couldn't do the jobs themselves.
3
reply
Varss
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 weeks ago
#33
So many people see tax as theft from hard earned work but forget ownership rights are legal issues and so are funded by your own taxes. Also don't disregard the extent to which your health and education has been funded to enable you to ever earn as much as you do.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by QE2)
That isn't in the manifesto, so detailed costings aren't available in the Grey Book.
However, it does illustrate how Labour is the party of social justice rather than the party of "**** you, I'm alright Jack".
Yes that is true. If you vote Labour you know what you're voting for, and clarity is always a good thing.

We have very different politics, but have enough respect for each other to respect differences. I wish TSR overall were more like that.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by QE2)
"Sorry, that page doesn't exist"
Just like the evidence for Corbyn being an IRA supporter.
Nicely done!
try this instead

https://twitter.com/GuyBarski/status...11656008892416
0
reply
xDron3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 weeks ago
#36
No point trying to argue against Labour on TSR. Focus your efforts elsewhere, I learnt that a while ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 weeks ago
#37
Still no evidence that he supported the IRA.
He met with members of Sinn Fein in the course of campaigning for peace in NI. He also met Unionist politicians with questionable connections. At the same time, the Tory government was actually in negotiations with the IRA.
He supported a united Ireland and the withdrawal of the occupying British army, as many people did. He has always condemned terrorist violence.
Also, some of that twitter post is nonsense.

Do you think that Nelson Mandela should not have been president of South Africa? He was a convicted terrorist, after all?
Last edited by QE2; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by QE2)
Still no evidence that he supported the IRA.
He met with members of Sinn Fein in the course of campaigning for peace in NI. He also met Unionist politicians with questionable connections. At the same time, the Tory government was actually in negotiations with the IRA.
He supported a united Ireland and the withdrawal of the occupying British army, as many people did. He has always condemned terrorist violence.

Do you think that Nelson Mandela should not have been president of South Africa? He was a convicted terrorist, after all?
people are not stupid. they can see for themselves what kind of person Tragic Grandpa is.

0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#39
Report 2 weeks ago
#39
https://twitter.com/GuyBarski/status...11656008892416

in case you missed it

:flute:
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report 2 weeks ago
#40
Still can't see anything on there that shows he supported the IRA. Why don't you actually say what the evidence is, rather than linking to a twitter feed full of different accusations that provide no support for its claims?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (343)
46.04%
No (80)
10.74%
I'm not old enough (322)
43.22%

Watched Threads

View All