Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The General Election - June 8th 2017
Comments
-
Rob7Lee said:
You need to change news channel! How can a 5p increase between 80k and £123k result in £23k more tax!?!MuttleyCAFC said:It just come up on the news - If you earn £123k it will be £23k though.
5% of £43k is what....... £2,150 extra. Is Corbyn reading the news?
BBC errors.7 -
Selectively misrepresenting or even lying about the numbers is what politicians do. It's not news. Not knowing what figures to misrepresent or lie about was news.Callumcafc said:
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.11 -
I guarantee she's lining up people to blame if and when Brexit negotiations go tits upCallumcafc said:Theresa May refuses to guarantee Hammond's job as chancellor in their bizarre joint press conference in Canary Wharf.
Strong and stable Tory government planning another reshuffle.
0 -
-
Is your point that 1983 was a long time ago, or that it wasn't?cafcfan said:
Who the hell is that tosser? And how did anyone find his pronouncements?Friend Or Defoe said:On the subject of tax.
Does he know that the whole world was a very different place nigh on two generations ago? Would he know, for example, that the idiot Foot wanted to re-introduce exchange controls in 1983? That would have been good. Anyway, it allows us the opportunity to revisit the Foot manifesto (which didn't include the bit about exchange controls by the way, although all the documents were printed up and ready to go, presumably because of the Labour Party's 1983 promise of a Brexit.) So, the longest suicide note in history. It's remarkably similar in many respects to the 2017 edition. It's here politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab83.htm should anyone fancy some mawkish reminiscence of "The New Hope for Britain".
A young Jeremy Corbyn, in his first stint as an MP said the '83 manifesto was “a very interesting electoral platform but lots of people in the party were quite frightened of it”. Whereas Tony Benn took comfort by arguing that “for the first time since 1945, a political party with an openly socialist policy has received the support of over 8.5 million people. This is a remarkable development by any standards and it deserves some analysis.”
It is remarkable to look back now at that great orator, Michael Foot and see similar adoring crowds at that election campaign as our Jeremy gets now. In anything approaching normal times, the Labour party should be in with a strong shout this time round. But I suspect that the twin effects of the SNP's stranglehold on Scotland and the eagerly anticipated demise of UKIP as a political force would be sufficient to do for the party's chances even without the Corbyn effect. We shall see.
(I'm still not voting.)3 -
I think that's the correct answer. In later additions of the news bulletin the additional £23k tax take was shown for someone earning half a million, not the lower figure! So just the odd footballer and some BBC newscasters then!Callumcafc said:Rob7Lee said:
You need to change news channel! How can a 5p increase between 80k and £123k result in £23k more tax!?!MuttleyCAFC said:It just come up on the news - If you earn £123k it will be £23k though.
5% of £43k is what....... £2,150 extra. Is Corbyn reading the news?
BBC errors.0 -
Already lol'd but, lol.Dippenhall said:
Selectively misrepresenting or even lying about the numbers is what politicians do. It's not news. Not knowing what figures to misrepresent or lie about was news.Callumcafc said:
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.3 -
It depends. For most people it was a long time ago. If you're a member of the labour party, it was only yesterday.Chizz said:
Is your point that 1983 was a long time ago, or that it wasn't?cafcfan said:
Who the hell is that tosser? And how did anyone find his pronouncements?Friend Or Defoe said:On the subject of tax.
Does he know that the whole world was a very different place nigh on two generations ago? Would he know, for example, that the idiot Foot wanted to re-introduce exchange controls in 1983? That would have been good. Anyway, it allows us the opportunity to revisit the Foot manifesto (which didn't include the bit about exchange controls by the way, although all the documents were printed up and ready to go, presumably because of the Labour Party's 1983 promise of a Brexit.) So, the longest suicide note in history. It's remarkably similar in many respects to the 2017 edition. It's here politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab83.htm should anyone fancy some mawkish reminiscence of "The New Hope for Britain".
A young Jeremy Corbyn, in his first stint as an MP said the '83 manifesto was “a very interesting electoral platform but lots of people in the party were quite frightened of it”. Whereas Tony Benn took comfort by arguing that “for the first time since 1945, a political party with an openly socialist policy has received the support of over 8.5 million people. This is a remarkable development by any standards and it deserves some analysis.”
It is remarkable to look back now at that great orator, Michael Foot and see similar adoring crowds at that election campaign as our Jeremy gets now. In anything approaching normal times, the Labour party should be in with a strong shout this time round. But I suspect that the twin effects of the SNP's stranglehold on Scotland and the eagerly anticipated demise of UKIP as a political force would be sufficient to do for the party's chances even without the Corbyn effect. We shall see.
(I'm still not voting.)0 -
It seemed to be news a couple of weeks ago...Dippenhall said:
Selectively misrepresenting or even lying about the numbers is what politicians do. It's not news. Not knowing what figures to misrepresent or lie about was news.Callumcafc said:
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.3 -
Abbott's problem was twofold - first she didn't know the number and second her guesstimate was ludicrous.Friend Or Defoe said:
It seemed to be news a couple of weeks ago...Dippenhall said:
Selectively misrepresenting or even lying about the numbers is what politicians do. It's not news. Not knowing what figures to misrepresent or lie about was news.Callumcafc said:
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.5 - Sponsored links:
-
9 -
Economist headline.
Whatever hue you vote, the writer deserves a doff of the cap, surely?
16 -
She said £300k but meant £300m then got flustered. Both are worrying but one will get more coverage than the other.newyorkaddick said:
Abbott's problem was twofold - first she didn't know the number and second her guesstimate was ludicrous.Friend Or Defoe said:
It seemed to be news a couple of weeks ago...Dippenhall said:
Selectively misrepresenting or even lying about the numbers is what politicians do. It's not news. Not knowing what figures to misrepresent or lie about was news.Callumcafc said:
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.2 -
-
..and turd, the 10,000 extra Police was a policy Labour chose to bring out before their manifesto was made public, so one woulda thought that the very head of the department who look after that particular area would've bothered to swot up on the basic figures before embarking on her intrepid "6 interviews in one day"newyorkaddick said:
Abbott's problem was twofold - first she didn't know the number and second her guesstimate was ludicrous.Friend Or Defoe said:
It seemed to be news a couple of weeks ago...Dippenhall said:
Selectively misrepresenting or even lying about the numbers is what politicians do. It's not news. Not knowing what figures to misrepresent or lie about was news.Callumcafc said:
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.1 -
Which is completely different to the current chancellor not knowing the cost of a tens of billions pound infrastructure project.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
..and turd, the 10,000 extra Police was a policy Labour chose to bring out before their manifesto was made public, so one woulda thought that the very head of the department who look after that particular area would've bothered to swot up on the basic figures before embarking on her intrepid "6 interviews in one day"newyorkaddick said:
Abbott's problem was twofold - first she didn't know the number and second her guesstimate was ludicrous.Friend Or Defoe said:
It seemed to be news a couple of weeks ago...Dippenhall said:
Selectively misrepresenting or even lying about the numbers is what politicians do. It's not news. Not knowing what figures to misrepresent or lie about was news.Callumcafc said:
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.
5 -
I bet he had a better guess than DA's though ; )Friend Or Defoe said:
Which is completely different to the current chancellor not knowing the cost of a tens of billions pound infrastructure project.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
..and turd, the 10,000 extra Police was a policy Labour chose to bring out before their manifesto was made public, so one woulda thought that the very head of the department who look after that particular area would've bothered to swot up on the basic figures before embarking on her intrepid "6 interviews in one day"newyorkaddick said:
Abbott's problem was twofold - first she didn't know the number and second her guesstimate was ludicrous.Friend Or Defoe said:
It seemed to be news a couple of weeks ago...Dippenhall said:
Selectively misrepresenting or even lying about the numbers is what politicians do. It's not news. Not knowing what figures to misrepresent or lie about was news.Callumcafc said:
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.0 -
One got loads of numbers wrong from £300,000 for 10,000 police to £80,000,000 for 250,000 police to to £300,000,000 for 2500 police... She then accused the interviewer of making up figures!
The other quoted a figure that included contingencies. He not once accused the interviewer of stating a single figure he had said himself! (£20bn in contingencies is mental though!)0 -
Well she was £299,700,000 off and he was £20bn off so no he didn't!i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I bet he had a better guess than DA's though ; )Friend Or Defoe said:
Which is completely different to the current chancellor not knowing the cost of a tens of billions pound infrastructure project.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
..and turd, the 10,000 extra Police was a policy Labour chose to bring out before their manifesto was made public, so one woulda thought that the very head of the department who look after that particular area would've bothered to swot up on the basic figures before embarking on her intrepid "6 interviews in one day"newyorkaddick said:
Abbott's problem was twofold - first she didn't know the number and second her guesstimate was ludicrous.Friend Or Defoe said:
It seemed to be news a couple of weeks ago...Dippenhall said:
Selectively misrepresenting or even lying about the numbers is what politicians do. It's not news. Not knowing what figures to misrepresent or lie about was news.Callumcafc said:
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.
2 -
What's the difference as a percentage?Friend Or Defoe said:
Well she was £299,700,000 off and he was £20bn off so no he didn't!i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I bet he had a better guess than DA's though ; )Friend Or Defoe said:
Which is completely different to the current chancellor not knowing the cost of a tens of billions pound infrastructure project.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
..and turd, the 10,000 extra Police was a policy Labour chose to bring out before their manifesto was made public, so one woulda thought that the very head of the department who look after that particular area would've bothered to swot up on the basic figures before embarking on her intrepid "6 interviews in one day"newyorkaddick said:
Abbott's problem was twofold - first she didn't know the number and second her guesstimate was ludicrous.Friend Or Defoe said:
It seemed to be news a couple of weeks ago...Dippenhall said:
Selectively misrepresenting or even lying about the numbers is what politicians do. It's not news. Not knowing what figures to misrepresent or lie about was news.Callumcafc said:
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.
38.5%ish? Out for the Cons
99.9% Out for the Labs0 - Sponsored links:
-
-
Lots of Fake News posters going up in Kettering.
Most are too rude for here, but you can Google them
8 -
What's the difference to the tax payer? : Annoying smiley face thing:Dazzler21 said:
What's the difference as a percentage?Friend Or Defoe said:
Well she was £299,700,000 off and he was £20bn off so no he didn't!i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I bet he had a better guess than DA's though ; )Friend Or Defoe said:
Which is completely different to the current chancellor not knowing the cost of a tens of billions pound infrastructure project.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
..and turd, the 10,000 extra Police was a policy Labour chose to bring out before their manifesto was made public, so one woulda thought that the very head of the department who look after that particular area would've bothered to swot up on the basic figures before embarking on her intrepid "6 interviews in one day"newyorkaddick said:
Abbott's problem was twofold - first she didn't know the number and second her guesstimate was ludicrous.Friend Or Defoe said:
It seemed to be news a couple of weeks ago...Dippenhall said:
Selectively misrepresenting or even lying about the numbers is what politicians do. It's not news. Not knowing what figures to misrepresent or lie about was news.Callumcafc said:
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.
38.5%ish? Out for the Cons
99.9% Out for the Labs2 -
Your child will then come back with his degree in Burger Van Management to find a job market flooded with people with other similarly tinpot degrees, cant afford to move back out without a job, and then will cost you a fortune raiding your fridge for 20 years.Callumcafc said:
Unless he actually does start a burger van. Then he can feed himself and live in it.2 -
Oh come on it's obvious innit. If you want to denigrate Labour under Corbyn it's perfectly acceptable to link it as far back as you like to make your point. Even suggest they will be "dragging us back to the 70's" if it helps. Maybe make a comparison to what the trains or utilities were like back then, that's a really useful and reliable indicator to throw into the mix and shows exactly what they would be like under public ownership now. Without doubt.Chizz said:
Is your point that 1983 was a long time ago, or that it wasn't?cafcfan said:
Who the hell is that tosser? And how did anyone find his pronouncements?Friend Or Defoe said:On the subject of tax.
Does he know that the whole world was a very different place nigh on two generations ago? Would he know, for example, that the idiot Foot wanted to re-introduce exchange controls in 1983? That would have been good. Anyway, it allows us the opportunity to revisit the Foot manifesto (which didn't include the bit about exchange controls by the way, although all the documents were printed up and ready to go, presumably because of the Labour Party's 1983 promise of a Brexit.) So, the longest suicide note in history. It's remarkably similar in many respects to the 2017 edition. It's here politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab83.htm should anyone fancy some mawkish reminiscence of "The New Hope for Britain".
A young Jeremy Corbyn, in his first stint as an MP said the '83 manifesto was “a very interesting electoral platform but lots of people in the party were quite frightened of it”. Whereas Tony Benn took comfort by arguing that “for the first time since 1945, a political party with an openly socialist policy has received the support of over 8.5 million people. This is a remarkable development by any standards and it deserves some analysis.”
It is remarkable to look back now at that great orator, Michael Foot and see similar adoring crowds at that election campaign as our Jeremy gets now. In anything approaching normal times, the Labour party should be in with a strong shout this time round. But I suspect that the twin effects of the SNP's stranglehold on Scotland and the eagerly anticipated demise of UKIP as a political force would be sufficient to do for the party's chances even without the Corbyn effect. We shall see.
(I'm still not voting.)
But never, ever compare the past performance of the Tories, even if only from a few years ago let alone under Thatcher. That's just unfair and not taking account of the prevailing circumstances and environment!
Seriously I'm shocked you didn't know that rule Chizza!5 -
Did I miss something in the Labour Manifesto? Did they say they were going to scrap uni fees, but only offer ridiculous courses DamoNorthStand made up?DamoNorthStand said:
Your child will then come back with his degree in Burger Van Management to find a job market flooded with people with other similarly tinpot degrees, cant afford to move back out without a job, and then will cost you a fortune raiding your fridge for 20 years.Callumcafc said:
Unless he actually does start a burger van. Then he can feed himself and live in it.4 -
Tinpot degrees? They are already here.DamoNorthStand said:
Your child will then come back with his degree in Burger Van Management to find a job market flooded with people with other similarly tinpot degrees, cant afford to move back out without a job, and then will cost you a fortune raiding your fridge for 20 years.Callumcafc said:
Unless he actually does start a burger van. Then he can feed himself and live in it.
As I have mentioned, I support my sister's two kids through Unis. I told my nephew that my wedge was a results based loan. In what I thought was the unlikely event he got a First, I would write off the 9k. He kept telling me, Uncle Richard, I am going for it, and I can do it. Thinking back to my own struggle to get a 2.2, I thought he was dangerously overconfident, since he appeared to be cruising through. He duly got his First. I was proud of him, going round telling people outside the U.K. that you have to be super smart and only 1-2% get a First. Imagine my horror when I discovered the rate is now 16% with firsts.
And now they charge for my niece £9 k PER YEAR, when she could have chosen to go somewhere like Maastricht and pay a tiny fraction. Are our universities so much better than all the fine continental ones? Are you having a laugh? How the hell do UK Unis arrive at such preposterous fees? And why are more of you not as outraged as I am about it?
This is an election. A time when we are supposed to debate everything we can change through the political process, not just spout nonsense about how Labour will bankrupt the country, and blindly go to the polls to give the Tories carte Blanche.
9 -
If 16% are getting firsts whilst less intelligent youth numbers appear to be rising I can only think one of four things may have occurred:
1. The students of the past did not try hard enough
2. The students of today get have an easier scoring system
3. The students of today try a lot harder
4. Less students continue on into University.
Answering myself:
4. I am pretty sure there are more students so we can write this one off.
3. I am certain students of today feel they have more competition, as a result of more people going to University. Whether this = Trying harder or not is difficult to tell.
2. I am unsure about this one, however a bit of googling seems to show exams have increased in difficulty if anything!
1. This is my only option remaining, but I just don't believe it's this one! Surely they tried just as much....
This is why I don't like my brain... it disagrees with itself!
I can only come to the newest option.
5. Students are tutored to pass an exam and to get high scores on an essay (rather than knowing the subject matter inside out) in order to make their universities look better than they are at teaching the subject matter and to make more money out of students paying higher fees.2 -
Students of today can't afford to get shitfaced every night!Dazzler21 said:If 16% are getting firsts whilst less intelligent youth numbers appear to be rising I can only think one of four things may have occurred:
1. The students of the past did not try hard enough
2. The students of today get have an easier scoring system
3. The students of today try a lot harder
4. Less students continue on into University.
Answering myself:
4. I am pretty sure there are more students so we can write this one off.
3. I am certain students of today feel they have more competition, as a result of more people going to University. Whether this = Trying harder or not is difficult to tell.
2. I am unsure about this one, however a bit of googling seems to show exams have increased in difficulty if anything!
1. This is my only option remaining, but I just don't believe it's this one! Surely they tried just as much....
This is why I don't like my brain... it disagrees with itself!
I can only come to the newest option.
5. Students are tutored to pass an exam and to get high scores on an essay (rather than knowing the subject matter inside out) in order to make their universities look better than they are at teaching the subject matter and to make more money out of students paying higher fees.
Was £1k a year for me which I thought was reasonable.1 -
£1k per year to get sh*tfaced? What were you drinking? Bulgarian country wine?11
This discussion has been closed.
