Measuring The Tories (2 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
It’s irrelevant. As usual you don’t like the answer so you’re moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...

Tony It’s not moving anything as it’s a key and significant difference

You attempt to position yourself as a political commentator but you’ve really had no insight at all into this election and the views of the British public at all

In the past you’ve slobbered over Cameron, dribbled over Farage and now seem to be some kind of Corbynite crony

It’s a bit of a nightmare isn’t it?
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Tony It’s not moving anything as it’s a key and significant difference

You attempt to position yourself as a political commentator but you’ve really had no insight at all into this election and the views of the British public at all

In the past you’ve slobbered over Cameron, dribbled over Farage and now seem to be some kind of Corbynite crony

It’s a bit of a nightmare isn’t it?
Click to expand...
The only one who dribbled over “the man” was you.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Perhaps you’d like to come back to me with the IFS forecast on shareholder values of these policies and then we can have a text book discussion on them. Let’s start with the co operating purchase of shares in companies. What was the forecast losses for the economy from the IFS and why do you disagree with their views?
Click to expand...

And why would this happen? Because as I said above they don't want to share any of the wealth and because the markets control the prices they're in a position to make it happen deliberately to keep on being greedy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because they want it to be.

Think of all the money they could save not having to employ people looking for ways around tax or on cosying up to MP's to get legislation they like. Just get on with business and the shareholders benefits. It just happens that would include the country in those shareholders. In what way are the markets for these companies changed? In what way are they being hindered from making profits? They aren't. If a company had a share issue and 10% of the shareholding was bought by GreedyBastard the market wouldn't go into meltdown, so there is no actual logical reason for them to do so if it went into the hands of public ownership. In anything there's less reason because that shareholder has further vested interest outside of the company for it to do well long-term and are in a position to enable it to do so as it has a say and funding for infrastructure/training that will benefit the company, whereas GreedyBastard is only in it for the profits for himself and once he thinks he's got as much as he can will discard those shares without a second thought.

Just engage you brain rather than the rhetoric and tell me which part of the explanation I gave doesn't make sense. I bet you can't and you deflect.

The only reason shareholder values would go down is because of scaremongering and greed of the shareholders themsleves
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
And why would this happen? Because as I said above they don't want to share any of the wealth and because the markets control the prices they're in a position to make it happen deliberately to keep on being greedy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because they want it to be.

Think of all the money they could save not having to employ people looking for ways around tax or on cosying up to MP's to get legislation they like. Just get on with business and the shareholders benefits. It just happens that would include the country in those shareholders. In what way are the markets for these companies changed? In what way are they being hindered from making profits? They aren't. If a company had a share issue and 10% of the shareholding was bought by GreedyBastard the market wouldn't go into meltdown, so there is no actual logical reason for them to do so if it went into the hands of public ownership. In anything there's less reason because that shareholder has further vested interest outside of the company for it to do well long-term and are in a position to enable it to do so as it has a say and funding for infrastructure/training that will benefit the company, whereas GreedyBastard is only in it for the profits for himself and once he thinks he's got as much as he can will discard those shares without a second thought.

Just engage you brain rather than the rhetoric and tell me which part of the explanation I gave doesn't make sense. I bet you can't and you deflect.

The only reason shareholder values would go down is because of scaremongering and greed of the shareholders themsleves
Click to expand...

You say deflect but I asked a specific question on specific policy detail and the IFS forecast on the impact - can you please answer this first? Why have you ignored it?
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
You say deflect but I asked a specific question on specific policy detail and the IFS forecast on the impact - can you please answer this first? Why have you ignored it?
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it - I said those forecasts are because investors would deliberately make it so to make it unpalatable. There is no logical reason for it to occur any more than from any other share issue. As I said if anything there is more of a benefit than from a normal share issue because the new shareholders have money, power and influence to improve the infrastructure etc to make the market better for them.

You have however ignored trying to put forward an argument as to logical flaws in the thinking.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I didn't ignore it - I said those forecasts are because investors would deliberately make it so to make it unpalatable. There is no logical reason for it to occur any more than from any other share issue. As I said if anything there is more of a benefit than from a normal share issue because the new shareholders have money, power and influence to improve the infrastructure etc to make the market better for them.

You have however ignored trying to put forward an argument as to logical flaws in the thinking.
Click to expand...

So you have more academic knowledge than the IFS - ok
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sick Boy said:
The Morgan stuff is an utter disgrace
Click to expand...
Expect those who wanted to 'take back control' and were outraged at the EU having unelected officials will be up in arms at this.

Sure its in no way linked to her overseeing the investigation into the £100K Arcuri was given which cleared Johnson of any wrongdoing.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Expect those who wanted to 'take back control' and were outraged at the EU having unelected officials will be up in arms at this.

Sure its in no way linked to her overseeing the investigation into the £100K Arcuri was given which cleared Johnson of any wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Careful what you wish for, Liberal Democracy still has a majority in the Lords, if no longer the commons. We may well be about to get a first hand lesson in the importance of an unelected chamber.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Ccfcsj said:
Probably talking bollocks here - and I'm sure they'll be plenty of people on here to confirm it and bash my comments but...

It makes me wonder how the result will affect Coventry. The City voted Labour - will the Tories think (a) Sod Coventry - they didn't want us so they can go to hell or (b) think, Coventry, they didn't vote for us so lets make things rosy for them so they love us when the next election comes around
Click to expand...

It's quite telling that the language coming out of the Johnson camp after the result was that they would suddenly reconsider the prospect of investment up north. It's almost like they didn't think they'd score many seats up there so weren't bothered about putting the money in. Scotland didn't get any reward for helping Mrs May keep power, let's see if the North gets anything for helping Boris this time.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
No they need to learn that despises working poverty and either live with it or become a fringe Oxford pig fucking society - we won’t be investing in anything, we won’t be denying people to spend their hard earned pittance on their trip to the food bank, we won’t be taxing Amazon so that corporate tax revenues become a thing, we wont be forcing companies to pay anything

These are the politics of the Victorian era and no one wants them
Click to expand...

I agree G the problem is a lot of people voted for it
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
SkyBlueCharlie9 said:
OK so how against what criteria should we measure the success of the new government over next 5 years ...Here's a few for we need starters that I think we need to hold them accountable for....based on Brexit claims and their soundbites/manifesto....it might include....
1 Number of nurses/ doctors increased NHS £350m a week investment increase! ( based on infamous Bus slogan)
2.Number of policemen/women gained on 2010 figures.
3. Off shore tax haven reduction
4. Increase in corporate tax rates
5 Increase in affordable homes built
6 Reduction in food banks
7 New schools/education investment
8 Grassroots sport investment
9 Reduction in utility bills
10.I in green industries
11. More skilled colleges vocational subjects
12. Stop sale of arms to any dodgy governments
13. Investment in care homes, and support for home carers.
14. Properly funded local services/ Council's
15 Investment in buses, cycling, trains
16. A proper Economic Vision for each and every region!!!!
17. Immigration- based on a thorough understanding of all economic contributions to the emigrants make to .
the economy.
18 Stronger human rights act.
19 Higher food advertisement standards.
20 Tackleorganised crime ,drugs, sex trafficing, all forms of exploitation.
Will probably be more....
Click to expand...
People will measure them on the main things that affect them: -
1. Is Brexit dine so we a. don't have it rammed down our throats hourly on the news, & b. has stability & confidence at least clearly started to return in the economym
2. Do I feel safer now than I did in mid-late 2019?
3. Do I feel like I am getting a good vibe about my life?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
fatso

fatso

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
People will measure them on the main things that affect them: -
1. Is Brexit dine so we a. don't have it rammed down our throats hourly on the news, & b. has stability & confidence at least clearly started to return in the economym
2. Do I feel safer now than I did in mid-late 2019?
3. Do I feel like I am getting a good vibe about my life?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
And also,
Is the NHS safe, and improving.
Is my job safe, and can I afford to live.
Are interest rates still low,
Is my pension safe, or do I have to work till I’m 70
Is my standard of living likely to improve.
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
fatso said:
And also,
Is the NHS safe, and improving.
Is my job safe, and can I afford to live.
Are interest rates still low,
Is my pension safe, or do I have to work till I’m 70
Is my standard of living likely to improve.
Click to expand...
All in '3' imo

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
No one cares!! For an ex mining community to vote for thatchers party because there’s not been enough investment in their community is beyond understanding.
I’m still scratching my head to understand. I can understand a lot but that is completely beyond my understanding
Click to expand...

If you give an honest answer to this question you’ll be called a sneering elitist. Not like the party that shat on these areas from a great height in the last decade and did so before in the 80s.
 
O

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Seems the public finances forecast that was due to be published before the election but was held back shows an additional £18.3bn in borrowing being needed this financial year.

That increases borrowing for the year from £29.3bn to £47.6bn.

Watchdog reveals £18bn hole in Boris Johnson’s UK budget
Click to expand...
Yeah, and Labour, LibDems and Greens all said they would increase borrowing by £90-£100 billion a year for the term of the parliament to pay for their schemes.
 
richnrg

richnrg

Well-Known Member
when in coalition, the lib dems agreed to a policy to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Very good of them to be doing their bit towards this reduction now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top