Why the Tories have lost the Election.

#1
STOP SPLUTTERING, THAT MAN

1. "Look at him, he's RUBBISH" is not good enough a critique. "Trust us, we'll be OK" is not exactly a powerful or convincing message.

2. Not raising NICs sounds good, until you recall that they do not have any coherant strategy to raise the monies elsewhere. "Further efficiency savings"? That means not giving the lowest paid 2/3rds of Civil Servants a payrise - which not only penalises the (already low paid) lower grades, it by implication feathers the nest of the higher earners.

3. "We'll re-negotiate cotracts": and get sued for Breach of Contract if the result reduces the profit margins of the counterparty.

4. Increase Inheritance Tax thresholds so that c.1000 can benefit is just looking after the old boy network. Most people here, I strongly suspect, have their house as their Nil Rate Band (£325k. )

5. Cameron sounds like an overexcited school boy, and is rapidly losing credibility. His constant habit of calling for the most obvious solution to any problem and either calling Labour "copycats" or "indecisive" is beneath even the 4t Form Debating Society, let alone a man who wants to lead the UK.

6. Nobody seriously believed that Cameron welcomed the recent announcement of the domicility of his most important donor. He did it to avoid the embarrasment of an FoI disclosure. Lord Paul has been an acknowledged non Dom for many years. Its always been known.

7. The state of the economy, and the Government debt, has been caused by greedy banks, not Gordon Brown. The supposed alternative implicit in the Tory polemic is that they'd have let the UK banking system collapse. This would have been economic disaster on a cliched but unprecedented scale.

The Tories are not good enough

Looks UP...
 
#2
Bravo_Bravo said:
STOP SPLUTTERING, THAT MAN

1. "Look at him, he's RUBBISH" is not good enough a critique. "Trust us, we'll be OK" is not exactly a powerful or convincing message.

2. Not raising NICs sounds good, until you recall that they do not have any coherant strategy to raise the monies elsewhere. "Further efficiency savings"? That means not giving the lowest paid 2/3rds of Civil Servants a payrise - which not only penalises the (already low paid) lower grades, it by implication feathers the nest of the higher earners.

3. "We'll re-negotiate cotracts": and get sued for Breach of Contract if the result reduces the profit margins of the counterparty.

4. Increase Inheritance Tax thresholds so that c.1000 can benefit is just looking after the old boy network. Most people here, I strongly suspect, have their house as their Nil Rate Band (£325k. )

5. Cameron sounds like an overexcited school boy, and is rapidly losing credibility. His constant habit of calling for the most obvious solution to any problem and either calling Labour "copycats" or "indecisive" is beneath even the 4t Form Debating Society, let alone a man who wants to lead the UK.

6. Nobody seriously believed that Cameron welcomed the recent announcement of the domicility of his most important donor. He did it to avoid the embarrasment of an FoI disclosure. Lord Paul has been an acknowledged non Dom for many years. Its always been known.

7. The state of the economy, and the Government debt, has been caused by greedy banks, not Gordon Brown. The supposed alternative implicit in the Tory polemic is that they'd have let the UK banking system collapse. This would have been economic disaster on a cliched but unprecedented scale.

The Tories are not good enough

Looks UP...
1. But he IS rubbish; why not say it?

2. If you leave people more of their own money, they SPEND it. This raises taxes (VAT), and maybe some of them might actually hire someone, now they can afford it, which raises more tax on the income of someone who was unemployed but is now in work. You can't protect a recovery by taxing jobs. That's rubbish (see point 1).

3. 'Re-negotiate' means 'talk about it', not take our ball home cos we're cross.

4. Raising IT thresholds is about rewarding saving and not taxing the same money twice. It's an honourable and reasonable thing to do.

5. Fair one.

6. Fair one.

7. No. Brown is a credit card junkie, borrowing to get out of debt. If he hadn't made such a sh1theap of the economy, then the credit crunch wouldn't have crippled us so badly. He was signing the cheques, he's to blame.

8. Sorry, there wasn't an 8. I was getting on a roll. :D
 
#3
angular said:
2. If you leave people more of their own money, they SPEND it. This raises taxes (VAT), and maybe some of them might actually hire someone, now they can afford it, which raises more tax on the income of someone who was unemployed but is now in work. You can't protect a recovery by taxing jobs. That's rubbish (see point 1).
2. What you are refering to is popularly known as 'voodoo economics':

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-voodoo-economics.htm

A free-market politician's wet dream that you can cut taxes, and in doing so increase growth and maintain or increase the tax take, and in this case use it to reduce the deficit. The problem is that it doesn't work unless the overall rate of government tax is very very high - and by high I mean way out of the range of anything in the world today. A good, if slightly techie analysis of how such a plan would pan out in the modern day US is available here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf
 
#4
Bravo_Bravo said:
STOP SPLUTTERING, THAT MAN........
7. The state of the economy, and the Government debt, has been caused by greedy banks, not Gordon Brown. The supposed alternative implicit in the Tory polemic is that they'd have let the UK banking system collapse. This would have been economic disaster on a cliched but unprecedented scale.

The Tories are not good enough

Looks UP...
If you believe that you will believe anything.
 
#5
parapauk said:
angular said:
2. If you leave people more of their own money, they SPEND it. This raises taxes (VAT), and maybe some of them might actually hire someone, now they can afford it, which raises more tax on the income of someone who was unemployed but is now in work. You can't protect a recovery by taxing jobs. That's rubbish (see point 1).
2. What you are refering to is popularly known as 'voodoo economics':

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-voodoo-economics.htm

A free-market politician's wet dream that you can cut taxes, and in doing so increase growth and maintain or increase the tax take, and in this case use it to reduce the deficit. The problem is that it doesn't work unless the overall rate of government tax is very very high - and by high I mean way out of the range of anything in the world today. A good, if slightly techie analysis of how such a plan would pan out in the modern day US is available here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf
Yeah, nice links, and there's a problem if, like Reagan, you cut taxes for higher earners, not lower. NI isn't income tax, either. It's a tax on jobs, and on the companies who hire people. That's a really rubbish way to get out of recession.

If you're spending too much money, should you a. borrow more, b. earn more, c. spend less? Sometimes you have to do all three, but I believe that c. should be the main effort :soldier: .
 
#6
angular said:
parapauk said:
angular said:
2. If you leave people more of their own money, they SPEND it. This raises taxes (VAT), and maybe some of them might actually hire someone, now they can afford it, which raises more tax on the income of someone who was unemployed but is now in work. You can't protect a recovery by taxing jobs. That's rubbish (see point 1).
2. What you are refering to is popularly known as 'voodoo economics':

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-voodoo-economics.htm

A free-market politician's wet dream that you can cut taxes, and in doing so increase growth and maintain or increase the tax take, and in this case use it to reduce the deficit. The problem is that it doesn't work unless the overall rate of government tax is very very high - and by high I mean way out of the range of anything in the world today. A good, if slightly techie analysis of how such a plan would pan out in the modern day US is available here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf
Yeah, nice links, and there's a problem if, like Reagan, you cut taxes for higher earners, not lower. NI isn't income tax, either. It's a tax on jobs, and on the companies who hire people. That's a really rubbish way to get out of recession.

If you're spending too much money, should you a. borrow more, b. earn more, c. spend less? Sometimes you have to do all three, but I believe that c. should be the main effort :soldier: .
Agreed, I just think that the money saved by cutting spending should be used to cut the deficit directly, not used via tax cuts.
 
#7
All sounds a bit to clever for me. All I know is,when Labour took over in 97,they inherited an bouyant economy.

Over a period of 13 years,N L and Bliar/Broon have bankrupted this country,both fiscally,and morally,we were up shit creek,before the global recession hit,and any school kid will tell you,"you can't spend wot you ain't got"indefinitely,the reason our economy is faltering,is because Broon spent (gave away) all our "rainy day" money,whilst convincing the great unwashed,that the sun was still shining.

The phrase is "don't piss up my back and tell me it's raining",and that's what Broon,and N L,are doing now,and if people can't see that,then they will get the government they deserve!

I shall now go back to my Horlicks. 8O
 
#8
IIRC the election hasnt even been called yet, so how can any party have been regarded as losing? There is everything to play for, and the majority of the country (not the selective sampling of the opinion polls), knows it cannot afford 5 more years of Brown and his ruinous policies which have led to this country becoming so deeply embroiled in debt. For it was Brown who caused the problem not the banks.
 
#10
Do you know what. Those that always vote Conservative will continue to do so, as will those that vote for Labour or the Libs. The problem thereafter is that the voters that could, and might, make the difference, are those that couldn't give a shitt for any of them as they all talk bollocks and never answer any fecking questions.

Mongomania has reached a higher level than ever before and is prevelant throughout all parts of society. For the bulk of society, all that they give a shitt about is me, themselves, their little world and nothing else. The general population are thick and have to have their hands held, their arrses wiped and their brain's engaged for them.

So unless the Party's start directly telling people what they are going to do for them, then they ain't listening.
 
#11
Georgey-boy Osbourne is getting wolloped in the chancellor debate... he must hope this performance fades from memory.

Vince Cable seems to be the most clear and sensible... though Nick Clegg will torpedo any hopes for the Lib Dems.

Allistar Darling is holding up surprising well... with Brown at the helm maybe he's looking forward to passing the problem on.

Hung parliment looks increasingly likely IMHO.
 
#13
TopBadger said:
Georgey-boy Osbourne is getting wolloped in the chancellor debate... he must hope this performance fades from memory.

Vince Cable seems to be the most clear and sensible... though Nick Clegg will torpedo any hopes for the Lib Dems.

Allistar Darling is holding up surprising well... with Brown at the helm maybe he's looking forward to passing the problem on.

Hung parliment looks increasingly likely IMHO.
I'm enjoying the chancellors debate, very calm and grown-up.
 
#14
Oh hopefully the melt down on the Bugsy booted thread would be a mere tiny geyser to the volcanic meltdown that would occur if Labour got back in :D

I do believe that some peoples heads would actually explode as they typed their outrage if it was to happen :D :D
 
#15
CAARPS said:
Oh hopefully the melt down on the Bugsy booted thread would be a mere tiny geyser to the volcanic meltdown that would occur if Labour got back in :D

I do believe that some peoples heads would actually explode as they typed their outrage if it was to happen :D :D
That's why I'd love the Tories to loose just to see their faces/read their comments!
Must be akin to how Labour voters looked when M.Thatcher(spit) was returned to office. :lol:
 
#16
the Tories won't win , neither will labour. The extremes will have it. There is a huge move away from the EUSSR in the form of UKIP and dare I say BNP who will win seats this time around.
None of the middle of the road parties will fare well and do you know what! I am well glad. There is far too much sittling on the fence. The answer to the political strife is taking sides, not another 20 years of finding common ground and vote catching, getting splinters up your arrse sitting on the fence.
 
#17
Northern_Biff said:
the Tories won't win , neither will labour. The extremes will have it. There is a huge move away from the EUSSR in the form of UKIP and dare I say BNP who will win seats this time around.
I'm predicting that the BNP will have at least 3 seats in the next Parliment.
 
#18
llech said:
CAARPS said:
Oh hopefully the melt down on the Bugsy booted thread would be a mere tiny geyser to the volcanic meltdown that would occur if Labour got back in :D

I do believe that some peoples heads would actually explode as they typed their outrage if it was to happen :D :D
That's why I'd love the Tories to loose just to see their faces/read their comments!
Must be akin to how Labour voters looked when M.Thatcher(spit) was returned to office. :lol:
You fcukers make I laarf!

You are moaning and pissing about the Tories but can you tell me the difference? Labour have stolen most of the policies that the Tories would have put into effect. There is hardly any difference and dont tell me the current bullshiite about NIC is anything other than asmoke screen. Fcuk me, things must be bad when they are arguing over semantics.....there must be more disagreement amongst the party membership than between the two parties.

UKIP is the only answer to a decent change to our nation.
 
#19
Such a good last post, I typed it twice....honest.
 
#20
Northern_Biff said:
llech said:
CAARPS said:
Oh hopefully the melt down on the Bugsy booted thread would be a mere tiny geyser to the volcanic meltdown that would occur if Labour got back in :D

I do believe that some peoples heads would actually explode as they typed their outrage if it was to happen :D :D
That's why I'd love the Tories to loose just to see their faces/read their comments!
Must be akin to how Labour voters looked when M.Thatcher(spit) was returned to office. :lol:
You fcukers make I laarf!

You are moaning and pissing about the Tories but can you tell me the difference? Labour have stolen most of the policies that the Tories would have put into effect. There is hardly any difference and dont tell me the current bullshiite about NIC is anything other than asmoke screen. Fcuk me, things must be bad when they are arguing over semantics.....there must be more disagreement amongst the party membership than between the two parties.

UKIP is the only answer to a decent change to our nation.
Tell me, if you can, four policies that UKIP have apart from leaving the EU.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top