The" leaders" debate

[Jonny5]

It's very obvious that Labour are buying favour with promises that they know they won't have to keep.

 

Amber Rudd did not invent the phrase "magic money tree". It's pretty common vernacular and I've been using it to explain Jezza and Di's figures/policies for weeks.

 

I'm sorry that my using said phrase has upset you so.

[sgtkate]

It's very obvious that Labour are buying favour with promises that they know they won't have to keep.

 

Amber Rudd did not invent the phrase "magic money tree". It's pretty common vernacular and I've been using it to explain Jezza and Di's figures/policies for weeks.

 

I'm sorry that my using said phrase has upset you so.

 

Fair enough if you have but nearly everything anti-Jezza on here is taken directly from a Tory soundbite. If yours isn't then I am amazed and impressed with your powers of prediction over what Rudd would say. How far back do I have to search your posts to find this 'magic money tree' reference? I've gone back to Feb and not found it...

 

---------- Post added 02-06-2017 at 09:25 ----------

 

The Tories are not promising massive spending though.

 

Labour are, and their policies are in no way costed. Their most costliest policy of re-nationalisation has no costing (the last time I checked). Basocally the want to run up a massive debt when we are already massively in debt. Their tax rises for 'the rich' won't raise anywhere near what they have stated.

 

This country is ripe for the taking by someone with centrist views like Macron did in France. Tories are lurching to the right and Labour way to the left.

 

So once again, give me some Tory figures to show they aren't going to spend more, or aren't going to increase taxes on average earners, or aren't going to cut corporation tax....oh you can't. But yeah, you carry on slagging off the parties that have provided numbers. Why are you taking a pop at the LDs too because there numbers are made up as well. £1b from legalisation of cannabis?

[Jonny5]

I've barely commented on the election bit it's good to see you've got yourself a nice momentum pitch fork

[sgtkate]

I've barely commented on the election bit it's good to see you've got yourself a nice momentum pitch fork

 

And there we go! Accusations of being in momentum. Sadly I'm a fully signed up Green party member so no luck with that fishing attempt I'm afraid. I get the impression you are an LD supporter, in which case I'm a bit baffled by the Labour hating going on. LDs and Labour align far more closely than LD and Tory. And on most of those 'who should I vote for' sites I come out as Green first (thankfully!) and LDs second. Labour are often a distant third. I would massively support a Labour/LD coalition.

 

Anyway, things get nasty and taken out of context on here, so apologies if I made an assumption. I think you just got caught in the crossfire a bit. But the amount of hate Corbyn gets is insane. He's just a person doing what he thinks is the right thing. Same as May is for the Tories and Farron for LDs etc. By all means find fault with the policies if you don't support them, but this constant sniping at Corbyn using stock phrases that come up time and time again in the media is ridiculous. May get's it with the 'weak and unstable' line but that's a play on her own words. I don't hear other repeated soundbites about her or Farron, do you?

Edited June 2, 2017 by sgtkate

[dutch]

It's very obvious that Labour are buying favour with promises that they know they won't have to keep.

 

Amber Rudd did not invent the phrase "magic money tree". It's pretty common vernacular and I've been using it to explain Jezza and Di's figures/policies for weeks.

 

I'm sorry that my using said phrase has upset you so.

 

[Supertramp]

Fair enough if you have but nearly everything anti-Jezza on here is taken directly from a Tory soundbite. If yours isn't then I am amazed and impressed with your powers of prediction over what Rudd would say. How far back do I have to search your posts to find this 'magic money tree' reference? I've gone back to Feb and not found it...

 

---------- Post added 02-06-2017 at 09:25 ----------

 

 

So once again, give me some Tory figures to show they aren't going to spend more, or aren't going to increase taxes on average earners, or aren't going to cut corporation tax....oh you can't. But yeah, you carry on slagging off the parties that have provided numbers. Why are you taking a pop at the LDs too because there numbers are made up as well. £1b from legalisation of cannabis?

 

 

They are going to cut corporation tax, it's in their manifesto. They are going to increase the tax threshold. It's in their manifesto.

 

They're not looking to massively increase spending like Labour, so although they don't have costings, I'm not overly concerned.

 

£1 billion from the legalisation of Cannabis is a pretty conservative estimate. The BBC did some in depth analysis, looking at number of users, the states where it is legal in the US etc. etc.

 

Anyway, why are you getting so wound up?

[truman]

Fair enough if you have but nearly everything anti-Jezza on here is taken directly from a Tory soundbite. If yours isn't then I am amazed and impressed with your powers of prediction over what Rudd would say. How far back do I have to search your posts to find this 'magic money tree' reference? I've gone back to Feb and not found it...

 

---------- Post added 02-06-2017 at 09:25 ----------

 

 

So once again, give me some Tory figures to show they aren't going to spend more, or aren't going to increase taxes on average earners, or aren't going to cut corporation tax....oh you can't. But yeah, you carry on slagging off the parties that have provided numbers. Why are you taking a pop at the LDs too because there numbers are made up as well. £1b from legalisation of cannabis?

 

Genuine question Kate..what are Labour's numbers for their re-nationalisation plans? Energy, water, trains and post office...page 19 of their manifesto if you haven't read it.

[L00b]

It's very obvious that Labour are buying favour with promises that they know they won't have to keep.

Tories are no different, tbh.

 

I mean, 'cut down immigration to 100,000 by 2022'?

 

This, about one of the supposedly core topics of interest to the average voter, long before the referendum and since?

 

That's some record-breaking can kicking right there, aggravated once you take a passing look at their record of managing the issue hands-on since 2010 (yup, 7 years, count'em).

 

But "buying favour with promises that they know they won't have to keep" goes for all the parties, to be sure. And since the year dot.

 

Voting in this GE on the basis of the manifestos/policies is absurd. It is all about Brexit management for the next few years. And in that respect, the Tories have about as much credibility as Labour and all the others, i.e. none demonstrated so far howsoever. It's a level playing field.

Edited June 2, 2017 by L00b

[sgtkate]

Genuine question Kate..what are Labour's numbers for their re-nationalisation plans? Energy, water, trains and post office...page 19 of their manifesto if you haven't read it.

 

They are missing and shouldn't be. And why am I getting wound up? I don't know. I just don't like this current culture of people not being able to differentiate their opinion from one the media is giving. I'm probably no different by the way, but equally I actually get annoyed when people are slagging off Theresa May for cheap points too. Farron isn't getting any coverage really so hence why it's becoming a Tory/Labour fight, even though I'm neither really.

Edited June 2, 2017 by sgtkate

[Guest]

. Their most costliest policy of re-nationalisation has no costing (the last time I checked)

 

I believe the plan for re-nationalisation is to simply not renew the private contracts when they expire. Good idea in my view.