Isn't the UK in more debt know than it was when Labour were in power? Sure I read that somewhere...
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
As compared to the uncosted policies of the Tories....who if you're just worried about debt, have doubled it in their term (but of course it's more complicated than just the headline figure)
That's right, that's all they want to do and I will complain about that over my pint with my mates down the pub
[Grammarnazi]their[/grammarnazi]
hmmm....Umm.....no comment
Last edited:
The Tories have doubled the debt and history borrowed more than Labour.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 3,636
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
Now hang on - I'm prey sure this is fake news because it doesn't fit my agenda.
Nate
Did the Tories not cut the deficit fast enough then?
They have cut the deficit, it was £103bn in 2010 ( or 7% of gdp) and is now £15bn (less than 1% of gdp).
The debt rose because of the speed of deficit reduction. Labour proposed slower deficit reductions.
So I ask again, are you saying that the Tories didn't cut enough?
That wasn't their pledge Dolph, it was to eliminate it, they have now abandoned that.
And haven't they know bounced it back more years into the future cause of "brexit"? Plus whatever they are now offering which is uncosted
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
Current figures as they stand.....
Make of that as you will.
Make of that as you will.
And now imagine how much worse that would have been under labour, not to mention that the deficit they ran up in the first place didn't help either!
So it basically comes back the the catch phrase we've been hearing recently - we need 'strong and stable leadership' for the Brexit negotiations.
So it basically comes back the the catch phrase we've been hearing recently - we need 'strong and stable leadership' for the Brexit negotiations.
The problem is, as much as people like to pretend, you can't monetarily "price in" environmental damage. Yes you can say a tree is worth "x" because that's how much it costs to replace, but in reality you can't put a monetary value on the environment. That means any "pricing in" of the true environmental impact will an arbitrary amount calculated by the government and should be seen just as much government interference as taking taxation from motorists and subsidising other methods of traffic for environmental reasons.
Call it what you like. It's housing and this sector of it is not product or markets or price points. It's social housing and shouldn't be viewed that way.
It's only a subsidy to the tenant if govt is absolving itself of its responsibility to house citizens that cannot afford to rent privately. Which it hasn't and isn't.
Are the subsidies given to rail companies subsidies to rail passengers?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 2,812
- Location
- Essex
Today labour have announced an extra 37 billion for the NHS if they win.
They've also said there will be no tax rise for the 95% or national insurance increases like the media and the conservatives say to discredit them.
Looks like the old 'labour will increase taxes' argument just went out the window
They've also said there will be no tax rise for the 95% or national insurance increases like the media and the conservatives say to discredit them.
Looks like the old 'labour will increase taxes' argument just went out the window
of course it did... and they'll just pay for all of it with magic beans...
I note you weren't able to point out any of the alleged propaganda you claimed nor explain your own propaganda photo from yesterday
I genuinely dislike Teresa May and her whole party but labour can promise all they want money will not come out of nowhere. For them to have it they're either going to get the country in more debt or raise taxes somewhere else.
- Status