2022 mini-budget discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
you do know that no labour government has ever left office with unemployment lower than it began with,

hes slightly left himself, but hes in a battle with the lft in his party, why do you think rayner is deputy and gets away with murder
A pretty meaningless statistic really... If you want to see really high unemployment look at the Conservative governments of the 1980s and 1990s - and that period ended with higher unemployment than it started with too. Followed by a decent decline / reasonably low levels under Blair, with the global financial crisis bringing the numbers back up in 2009, but that was hardly their fault.
 
Last edited:
A pretty meaningless statistic really... If you want to see really high unemployment look at the Conservative governments of the 1980s and 1990s - and that period ended with higher unemployment than it started with too. Followed by a decent decline under Blair, with the global financial crisis bringing the numbers back up in 2009, but that was hardly their fault.
but its still a fact which ever way you swing it, ive lived under a few labour governments and they all been the same, taxed to the hilt, though mainly stealth taxes , tories just **** over the everyday workers and give to their rich chums.

to me the both as bad as one another, early blair yrs were the best for the everyday person, before he cuddled up to big business and the city, not forgetting he was a lying ******* **** :D
 
but its still a fact which ever way you swing it...

No it's not, I literally just linked you to the Full Fact article debunking it.

Aside from the fact that the definition of unemployment changed dramatically over time, making the data utterly meaningless; the claim you made is categorically untrue.
 
Last edited:
No it's not, I literally just linked you to the Full Fact article debunking it.

Aside from the fact that the definition of unemployment changed dramatically over time, making the data utterly meaningless; the claim you made is categorically untrue.
I think they've confused fact with opinion.
 
Last edited:
No it's not, I literally just linked you to the Full Fact article debunking it.

Aside from the fact that the definition of unemployment changed dramatically over time, making the data utterly meanin
gless; the claim you made is categorically untrue.
all your giving me is reasons why, even that article states. While the figures we do have back up the claim
then going on about trends and tory party
 
Last edited:
all your giving me is reasons why, even that article states. While the figures we do have back up the claim
then going on about trends and tory party

Eh? :confused:

Did you even read read the article? Or the part that I carefully bolded for you?

Full Fact said:
The 1924 minority Labour government (January 1924 to October 1924) bucked the trend, with the unemployment level decreasing - on this measure - slightly from 1.32 million to 1.29 million and the rate decreasing from 11.9% to 10.9%.

Remember, the claim you just made was:

no labour government has ever left office with unemployment lower than it began with,

Which is untrue, period.
 
Last edited:
omg the article actual states its the case the figures back up the claims,lol you have your opinion i have mine :p everyone is entitled to an opinion, this isnt cancel culture on here you know. i hate both parties anyway:p
and btw remember this,lol
Djm-K6-Pk-Ww-AQF3-Oj.jpg
 
but its still a fact which ever way you swing it, ive lived under a few labour governments and they all been the same, taxed to the hilt, though mainly stealth taxes , tories just **** over the everyday workers and give to their rich chums.

to me the both as bad as one another, early blair yrs were the best for the everyday person, before he cuddled up to big business and the city, not forgetting he was a lying ******* **** :D
Matter of opinion I guess, but for me I'd take a bunch of stealth taxes to secure some even moderately competent governance and planning for the future and even slightly improved public services.

Just from a quick Google I don't think the numbers actually show taxation being that much higher overall under labour:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?end=2020&locations=GB&start=1972&view=chart
Having seen the absolute contempt for the public that the Tories have, their incompetent long term planning, and the lengths they'll go to to enrich millionaires at the expense of the rest of the population, I'm really not convinced they're no worse than Labour.
 
Only in this country could we help people by capping energy bills at a ridiculously high price one week then throw a load of money at the wealthiest the next.

Its absolutely outrageous, so outrageous you just have to laugh at it all.

This winter is going to be so grim for a lot of people.
I think someone should get a petition going for an immediate general election. Strike while the irons hot because these people have got to go, 2 years is too long to wait.
 
I think someone should get a petition going for an immediate general election. Strike while the irons hot because these people have got to go, 2 years is too long to wait.
2 years really is too long to wait. What they have introduced today needs reversing ASAP, but I wonder is the feeling amongst the general population the same as these forums... imagine if they won.
 
Matter of opinion I guess, but for me I'd take a bunch of stealth taxes to secure some even moderately competent governance and planning for the future and even slightly improved public services.

Just from a quick Google I don't think the numbers actually show taxation being that much higher overall under labour:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?end=2020&locations=GB&start=1972&view=chart
Having seen the absolute contempt for the public that the Tories have, their incompetent long term planning, and the lengths they'll go to to enrich millionaires at the expense of the rest of the population, I'm really not convinced they're no worse than Labour.
the main rates generally wernt higher, but there were a sod for stealth taxes, but either way both parties give the everyday person sod all in reality.
i go by what it was like at time, i dont generally go looking for figures tbh, just things i remember
 
2 years really is too long to wait. What they have introduced today needs reversing ASAP, but I wonder is the feeling amongst the general population the same as these forums... imagine if they won.
Then I give up lol. I’ve never voted in my life and I’m proud of it but I think that may well change at the next election.
 
2 years really is too long to wait. What they have introduced today needs reversing ASAP, but I wonder is the feeling amongst the general population the same as these forums... imagine if they won.

2 years is far too long, totally agree. Don't worry though, we can drink ourselves into forgetfulness as that tax is being frozen. Oh joy :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
and btw remember this,lol
Djm-K6-Pk-Ww-AQF3-Oj.jpg
I've heard there's actually a bit of a tradition of previous ministers leaving slightly humorous notes for each other... But the Tories certainly destroyed that by using it as the centrepiece of their criticism of Labour

For all the negative press it got, the note is objectively false.

It's a bit silly it got used as anything other than a humorous artifact.

One that Labour got:

Backed up here:
 
Last edited:
I've heard there's actually a bit of a tradition of previous ministers leaving slightly humorous notes for each other... But the Tories certainly destroyed that by using it as the centrepiece of their criticism of Labour

For all the negative press it got, the note is objectively false.

It's a bit silly it got used as anything other than a humorous artifact.

One that Labour got:
now that was a funny one, i miss the old days, though i aint that old to remember that one,lol
 
omg the article actual states its the case the figures back up the claims

No it doesn't, why are you lying? You know what, rather than sit here making yourself look increasingly silly, why don't you actually read the article?

It doesn't say say that it "Backs up the claim" it says that it "backs up the claim for the last two Labour governments" only.

It then goes on to completely debunk your claim, which again, was this:

no labour government has ever left office with unemployment lower than it began with,

And it did so by pointing out the following:

Full Fact said:
The 1924 minority Labour government (January 1924 to October 1924) bucked the trend, with the unemployment level decreasing - on this measure - slightly from 1.32 million to 1.29 million and the rate decreasing from 11.9% to 10.9%.

So why did you feel the need to lie?

lol you have your opinion i have mine :p everyone is entitled to an opinion

Why are you talking about opinion when we're dealing with objective facts here? This isn't a matter of opinion. The claim that you made was categorically untrue and that's all there is to it.

Rather than graciously accept that you made a simple mistake, you've instead doubled down and dishonestly represented a quote from the article by purposefully cutting it off mid-sentence.

Cringe-worthy...

and btw remember this,lol
Djm-K6-Pk-Ww-AQF3-Oj.jpg

Erm yes... What do you think that has to do with anything?

Surely you know about the history of this tradition from outgoing governments? :confused:
 
Last edited:
No it doesn't, why are you lying? You know what, rather than sit here making yourself look increasingly silly, why don't you actually read the article?

It doesn't say say that it "Backs up the claim" it says that it "backs up the claim for the last two Labour governments" only.

It then goes on to completely debunk your claim, which was again, was this:



And it did so by pointing out the following:



Why did you feel the need to lie?




Why are you talking about opinion when we're dealing with objective facts here? This isn't a matter of opinion. The claim that you made was categorically untrue and that's all there is to it.

Rather than graciously accept that you made a simple mistake, you've instead doubled down and dishonestly represented a quote from the article by purposefully cutting it off mid-sentence.

Cringe-worthy...



Erm yes... What do you think that has to do with anything?

Surely you know about the history of this tradition from outgoing governments? :confused:
lol you need to get out more:cry:
now calm down and have a nice G&T before you burst a blood vessel:cry:
 
Last edited:
We need more than words.

He wasn’t elected, had he been, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine.

Literally everything Corbyn said would happen, is. He had the policies to prevent it.

4th June 2017: “Jeremy Corbyn [as PM] could spark a run on the pound”. Rupert Murdoch’s Times.

23rd Sept. 2022: Pound hits a 37 year low against the dollar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom