banjodeano Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 so what. That is still a majority and in fact it is a comfortable one. The last two parliaments that had small majorities, the 74-79 one, and the 92-97 one, each lasted the full five years. but if Corbyn and co are getting any comfort from the notion that both those small-majority governments lost the elections that followed, then they had better not delude themselves that it will happen again. Why not, the latest poll put him in front, unelectable indeed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Why not, the latest poll put him in front, unelectable indeed.... And we all know how reliable polls are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Why not, the latest poll put him in front, unelectable indeed.... The last poll put who in front? Corbyn? Im not sure that's very typical considering every major poll has the Torys ahead of labour by a margin over the last 4 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Can any of the Tory supporters on here explain this bearing in mind that regardless of his political stance the figures are undeniable: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/ ---------- Post added 22-03-2016 at 09:44 ---------- The last poll put who in front? Corbyn? Im not sure that's very typical considering every major poll has the Torys ahead of labour by a margin over the last 4 months. Yes, 'last' being the key word meaning in this context historical. It's a bit like saying that because it happened yesterday that means it'll happen today. Gives false hope to some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Can any of the Tory supporters on here explain this bearing in mind that regardless of his political stance the figures are undeniable: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/ Any chance of a non partisan source. I find personal blogs by long standing supporters of any party tend to be rather biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Any chance of a non partisan source. I find personal blogs by long standing supporters of any party tend to be rather biased. any chance of reading the data and coming back to give your response on its findings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Any chance of a non partisan source. I find personal blogs by long standing supporters of any party tend to be rather biased. What a surprise. So rather than looking at the pure figures which are pretty easy to find elsewhere as they are highly referenced, you chose to ignore that because the guy has publicised some figures you don't like. He's one of the highest regarded economists in the entire world. His views have merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Can any of the Tory supporters on here explain this bearing in mind that regardless of his political stance the figures are undeniable: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/ I am not a Tory supporter (as such) but find it odd that, as respected an economist as Murphy may be, he confined his analysis solely to the numbers, without any context, be it economical or fiscal. Such as the postwar debt-fuelled rebuilding and aid repayments, IMF crisis loans, post-crisis tax revenue at the bottom of the cliff <etc.> Statistically the Cons borrow more than Labour? Historically they come to power when the country's economy is thrashed (whether through Labour's mismanagement or not, it's irrelevant) and in most need of heavy borrowing to keep the lights on. Labour then come to power when people have had enough of the Tory tight belt, and find a balanced budget and a substantially recovered economy that are 'making babies' for the country. Cue next crisis, rinse-repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 What a surprise. So rather than looking at the pure figures which are pretty easy to find elsewhere as they are highly referenced, you chose to ignore that because the guy has publicised some figures you don't like. He's one of the highest regarded economists in the entire world. His views have merit. Stats are easily manipulated, especially when presented on websites that do not have to adhere to journalistic standards. Its not a problem to question the method of delivery for a politically biased report such as this. If it was such massive news, there would be at least one news agency to pick it up. Why have the Labour supporting media not reported this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) . Why have the Labour supporting media not reported this? why hasn't the tory supporting media not reported this to discredit the labour party Edited March 22, 2016 by PeteMorris Fixed quotes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now