LeMaquis Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Where did I say that? Go back and read the bit that says "this goes for ALL political view points" But if you need evidence that shows hoe prolific this is amoungst Labour seats, look here: http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html You missed out your original quote of "but seems way more prolific in the Labour heartlands" for which you offered no evidence. The Tories have as much a solid vote in affluent areas as Labour does in poor areas. ---------- Post added 27-01-2014 at 11:00 ---------- Of course it does, but being in labour heartlands you just see more red-coloured drum banging on here. I'm sure if I was a regular on Henley-on-Thames forum I'd see many more die-hard Tories defending their every policy. In other words you're agreeing with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 You missed out your original quote of "but seems way more prolific in the Labour heartlands" for which you offered no evidence. The Tories have as much a solid vote in affluent areas as Labour does in poor areas. Please take a look at the list I have linked. It shows MORE labour safe seats than Tory, hence my comment that its more prolific amounts Labour seats. If you think I'm wrong, please provide me with some alternative evidence to prove your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I've said it before, but not in while, but anyone who supports any party and doesn't criticise them at all is a complete and indeed dangerous moron. It's why an increasing number of us either don't vote or don't trust politicians because idiots like that vote for the same party regardless of anything and give them the sort of devotion normally reserved for football clubs. Well said, there's good and bad in all parties and policies. Take the 50p tax argument going on. Commentators against it were saying it would "only" bring in around £100 million and that its too insignificant to make a difference. Well I tell you what, give it to me and I'll distribute it to worthy causes and show that it can make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Well said, there's good and bad in all parties and policies. Take the 50p tax argument going on. Commentators against it were saying it would "only" bring in around £100 million and that its too insignificant to make a difference. Well I tell you what, give it to me and I'll distribute it to worthy causes and show that it can make a difference. The thing is, how much will it cost HM Revenue to bring in that amount? How much extra staff will be needed? etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 The Tories have as much a solid vote in affluent areas as Labour does in poor areas. Thats half the problem really, people to stupid to think past the Victorian class system. Are Labour really for 'the working man' did they really flourish under the last labour government, did more than a decade of Labour really turn things around? Is it all business and corporations now the Torys are in power, are the working class being forced from their homes?? I think you should vote for whatever party is better organised with a decent achievable manifesto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Well said, there's good and bad in all parties and policies. Take the 50p tax argument going on. Commentators against it were saying it would "only" bring in around £100 million and that its too insignificant to make a difference. Well I tell you what, give it to me and I'll distribute it to worthy causes and show that it can make a difference. Sadly, whilst you might find some very good homes for £100m, the government could fritter it away on u-turns or another failed policy - it's a drop on the ocean. In fact whilst I've typed this the MOD have very probably ****** it away on the wrong coloured paint for the wrong planes on an overpriced aircraft carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 The thing is, how much will it cost HM Revenue to bring in that amount? How much extra staff will be needed? etc etc. It's not like there should be any question left, it's been tried, someone can answer how much it actually generated in net additional income for the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Thats half the problem really, people to stupid to think past the Victorian class system. Are Labour really for 'the working man' did they really flourish under the last labour government, did more than a decade of Labour really turn things around? Is it all business and corporations now the Torys are in power, are the working class being forced from their homes?? I think you should vote for whatever party is better organised with a decent achievable manifesto. Labour don't represent the working man at the bottom the pile. The Tories don't represent the the working man at the bottom of the pile. Why do you think so many people in places like barking, maltby and burnley voted bnp? Is it because they are just racist labour voters who fancied a change? No. They weren't listened to in 13 years of a labour government and felt cheated. Tories won't help them in the main and they'll end up voting ukip (sadly ignoring the fact that a lot of employment legislation that keeps them safe comes from Europe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 It's not like there should be any question left, it's been tried, someone can answer how much it actually generated in net additional income for the government. whilst not disagreeing particularly, circumstances change - there may now be more (or fewer) taxpayers caught up in it which would generate more (or less) tax revenue just because last time it generated more than it cost to administer (or didn't) doesn't mean the same outcome would be achieved this time (or next time) it is a political policy not an economic one - the net income generated (or net cost) is academic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 1. The figures that we are discussing though are not employment levels (or number of vacancies) but unemployment levels, which are also tracked directly. 2. A convenient headline, but the details counter the point you want to make. 3. And from around the same date as that article http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-mortgage-approvals.php Mortgage lending (by number of approvals) is still at around 60% of the previous peak, slowly recovering, but still very suppressed. 4. True, of some debt, although in terms of household debt, only non-fixed mortgages really. Nearly every other kind of household debt is borrowed at a fixed rate for a fixed period, changes in the base rate make no difference. On the other hand, savers should immediately start to see some difference (and there are more savers than borrowers I think from memory), as most household saving (with the exception of bonds) is not at a fixed rate and duration. 1. Unemployment levels are not properly tracked. As I said there is the working tax credits scam. Declare yourself self-employed, earn naff all and then claim WTC. Avoid signing on for JSA. Underemployment is not measured. There is no official tracking of economically inactive individuals. No measures of the black economy. 2. Thee government response was bull. Personal debt HAS hit record highs. Bury your head in the sand if you want. The bit you quoted about a very minor fall in unsecured borrowing is out of context - you should have quoted the sentence before 3. With house prices rising again we do not want to get near peak number of approvals again. That would make things even more disastrous than before. The arguments about not being near peak are severely flawed because it was at that peak that the economy crashed. The important things are trends in borrowing and trends in prices - we are seeing growth in both. 4. Fixed rate deals don't last for ever cyclone. You know that. Anyway, congratulations on one of the most smugly complacent posts I've seen for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.