politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this polling turns out to be accurate then it is great news
Options
Comments
-
Mr. Eagles, cheers.0
-
Arguably does give Labour some room to push their policies though. I note the nurses pledge has already been debunked.Time_to_Leave said:Basically, there’s nothing new or noteworthy in the Tory manifesto and we’ll have forgotten about it in 24 hours. It just reinforces the lines to date. That’s mission accomplished isn’t it?
0 -
LOL - right back at youCorrectHorseBattery said:
The Tories wanted less regulation.Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
It's honestly like you live on another planet
I remember clearly what happened and the part your piss poor regulation played in it.
1 -
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/pm-and-six-other-senior-tories-at-risk-of-losing-seat-in-tactical-voting-switch/ar-BBXfCa9?li=BBoPRmx&item=personalization_enabled:false
---- Just curious, seems like IDS is the most vulnerable-- Even the bookies have written Goldsmith off...0 -
Gordon Brown thought he’d abolished boom and bust! And he kept spending accordingly.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm just saying the idea that there would have been no recession or deficit under the Tories is literally ridiculous.ydoethur said:
Labour backed the Tories’ policies over the ERM. Indeed, Brown was angry that we withdrew from it! Does that give the Tories a free pass for Black Wednesday? Absolutely not.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No you're right, in 2007.MaxPB said:
Not in 2005.CorrectHorseBattery said:
The Tories backed Labour's spending plans. Are you really going to sit here and tell me we'd have had no recession or deficit with them in power? Come on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm
When a party is in government and epically screws up, it does not matter what the opposition would or would not have done.1 -
The Tories pleaded for an unregulated banking sector before the crisis.It's all very well being wise after the event.0
-
You’re more than happy to swallow the horse manure that comes out of Boris and friends’s mouths without any evidence. What’s different?Floater said:
So, if your concerned about a deficit you clearly will reject Labour?Gallowgate said:
Evidence of what? We are still running a deficit and Brexit is going to result in less tax money and less growth. Simple. Other people’s money.Floater said:
Evidence pleaseGallowgate said:
And you’re going to run out of other people’s money paying for Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
The Tories weren't in government, Labour were. Labour overspent as they always do. Problem with Labour is they always run out of other people's money.IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Still waiting for evidence1 -
I think Labour would be less damaged by the GFC if somebody had resigned over it promptly and honourably. If they had said, ‘Whoop, guys, I got this wrong and as a result I am going to quit,’ I think enough people wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt to save their political bacon.Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
But the two who were responsible were Brown, who ran the huge deficits, and Darling, who devised the disastrous tripartite system. Brown was apparently very contrite in private, but his truly laughable claim in public that he had never said ‘no more boom and bust’ coupled with his refusal to resign shredded his reputation. Darling, meanwhile, saved his personal reputation at the cost of prolonging the agony for his government by not going even when Brown tried to sack him.
Major and Lamont redux, in a way.1 -
Depends whether it gets any traction: the three areas of public spending that most people care about are the NHS, pensions and schools (in that order.)CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/D_Raval/status/1198627791731929091
Labour will appreciate this analysis. They love the IFS now!
Pensioners have been shielded from austerity all along by the triple lock, so if schools and hospitals are getting a boost then that's all the key bases covered. Extra police officers, the social care sticking plaster and some money for road repairs are the cherry on top.
So, the Tories can point at the extra money being spent, claim that they're not splurging cash on everything because they're being responsible (and, relative to Labour, they're being positively Osbornian in their frugality,) and the numbers of voters who are offended by the areas that have missed out will be relatively limited. Moreover, the main group amongst them - people of working age who are largely or wholly dependent on social security - would all have been voting for Labour whatever the Tories said, in the hope of a hefty slab of redistribution.
If you're comparing two retail offers, one of which may be likened to a packet of cheap biscuits (Con) and the other to a seven-course banquet at the Ritz (Lab,) then of course people are going to want the banquet - provided that they think that they won't also be paying the bill for it. If offered the banquet followed by having their bank accounts emptied, or a free box of custard creams, they'll take the custard creams.0 -
Well, first i'm not in any party.Gallowgate said:
I thought you guys were in favour of minimal to no regulation?Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
Secondly - of course we need regulation - but regulation that actually, you know does the job.
Lots of box ticking is not effective regulation - as we know not just from the banks but child safety.1 -
I supported more regulation, New Labour did a piss poor job.Floater said:
LOL - right back at youCorrectHorseBattery said:
The Tories wanted less regulation.Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
It's honestly like you live on another planet
I remember clearly what happened and the part your piss poor regulation played in it.0 -
Prescient, ahem.Philip_Thompson said:1 -
And neither am I in any party.Floater said:
Well, first i'm not in any party.Gallowgate said:
I thought you guys were in favour of minimal to no regulation?Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
Secondly - of course we need regulation - but regulation that actually, you know does the job.
Lots of box ticking is not effective regulation - as we know not just from the banks but child safety.0 -
In case you didn’t notice, that’s what we actually in effect had.roserees64 said:The Tories pleaded for an unregulated banking sector before the crisis.It's all very well being wise after the event.
0 -
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/11986130736088145931 -
0
-
YEp - Labour always doesCorrectHorseBattery said:
I supported more regulation, New Labour did a piss poor job.Floater said:
LOL - right back at youCorrectHorseBattery said:
The Tories wanted less regulation.Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
It's honestly like you live on another planet
I remember clearly what happened and the part your piss poor regulation played in it.1 -
Perhaps. Could even be a garden bridge, although they'll have to be hardy plants to survive the Irish sea.Theuniondivvie said:
The bridge to NI of course.alex_ said:
High Speed 2?CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
*sighs*
I'm beginning to think my total lack of knowledge about football might be negatively affecting my bets.1 -
So do you support more regulation or not? You're all over the shop.Floater said:
YEp - Labour always doesCorrectHorseBattery said:
I supported more regulation, New Labour did a piss poor job.Floater said:
LOL - right back at youCorrectHorseBattery said:
The Tories wanted less regulation.Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
It's honestly like you live on another planet
I remember clearly what happened and the part your piss poor regulation played in it.
The original point was that it's literally insane to suggest that if the Tories had been in charge, this story would have been any different. The right were in charge in the USA, how did they handle it? Terribly.0 -
I suspect a local LD/Lab deal in play - not a single Lab leaflet or sign of any campaign at all.BluerBlue said:
And they'd be right. She's the candidate I feel most sorry for, since she deserves to win as a standing rebuke to Labour's antisemitism, but every single Tory MP counts in this election.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/11986130736088145930 -
You've spelled formula one wrong.Morris_Dancer said:*sighs*
I'm beginning to think my total lack of knowledge about football might be negatively affecting my bets.
🤣😂🤣😂0 -
According to what you have said on here about your age, you would have been in your early teens at the time of the GFC.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I supported more regulation, New Labour did a piss poor job.Floater said:
LOL - right back at youCorrectHorseBattery said:
The Tories wanted less regulation.Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
It's honestly like you live on another planet
I remember clearly what happened and the part your piss poor regulation played in it.
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).0 -
Almost.rcs1000 said:
Well, isn't the split:MarqueeMark said:That Scottish poll comes back to an issue I've alluded to before, where I have no local knowledge: to what extent are the SCons going to hoover up that intersect of those for Unionism and those for Leave? I would imagine the great bulk of their vote is those who are for both. To what extent do they also appeal to Unionist Remainers and (less likely I guess) pro-independence Brexiteers?
The great hope of Remainers was the Tories getting a thrashing in Scotland. But the SCons seats overlapped with the most pro-leave parts of Scotland. They might benefit from their vote concentrating exactly where they need it and thereby keeping losses to a minimum. Incredibly good new for Boris if so - not only for a majority, but also for saying that his majority has has some (although a lessened) legitimacy in Scotland to proceed with Brexit.
Unionist + Leave = Con
Unionist + Remain = LD
Seperatist + [] = SNP
Unionist + ? = Labour
The interesting thing about Scotland in 2019 is changing tactical vote assumptions.
Unionist + Leave = Con
Unionist + Remain = LD
Being a normal European country = SNP
Meh + Meh = Labour0 -
Yep the one elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the referendum result in Liverpool and has run off to London rather than explain to her constituents why she lied to them in 2017.Floater said:
Is she the one from Liverpool that Tim formerly of this parish got on well with?Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
God only knows what he makes of Labour now0 -
Nope - I don't like any party particularly.Gallowgate said:
You’re more than happy to swallow the horse manure that comes out of Boris and friends’s mouths without any evidence. What’s different?Floater said:
So, if your concerned about a deficit you clearly will reject Labour?Gallowgate said:
Evidence of what? We are still running a deficit and Brexit is going to result in less tax money and less growth. Simple. Other people’s money.Floater said:
Evidence pleaseGallowgate said:
And you’re going to run out of other people’s money paying for Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
The Tories weren't in government, Labour were. Labour overspent as they always do. Problem with Labour is they always run out of other people's money.IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Still waiting for evidence
I like my local Lib Dem candidate as he strikes me as a true public servant and I have said so repeatedly.
But the bottom line is the sewer dwelling marxists have to be kept out of power - literally everything else is secondary.
The tories are therefore the least worse choice0 -
Been out all day. Did the Tories manifest land well today? No feel for it at all.0
-
But you were just saying the SNP were 'on the same poll number they ve been getting for a decade' as if it was of import. Make yer mind up.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Who cares - Boris says no inyref2 for you - try not to cryTheuniondivvie said:
You did see that Yes was on 49% in the same poll?JBriskinindyref2 said:Shame TSE spinning for the separatists now - this poll puts them on the same poll number they ve been getting for a decade - hardly great news for a party that needs 50pc+1
0 -
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’2 -
I was going to make a similar comment but I thought - what's the point he is a mindless Labour drone.ydoethur said:
According to what you have said on here about your age, you would have been in your early teens at the time of the GFC.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I supported more regulation, New Labour did a piss poor job.Floater said:
LOL - right back at youCorrectHorseBattery said:
The Tories wanted less regulation.Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
It's honestly like you live on another planet
I remember clearly what happened and the part your piss poor regulation played in it.
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).
Plus you put it so much better.1 -
I don't believe I told you what my age was. I said I was relatively young but I don't reveal personal details on the Internet, so let's have no more discussion about that thank you.ydoethur said:
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).
I supported more regulation which people like Vince Cable - to his credit - supported and warned of the crash before it happened. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of regulation, just that in my short experience unfettered capitalism always leads to disaster.0 -
There were other factors. And chicken running may not be dignified, but having changed parties there's no reason someone should be forced to stand in a seat they have no hope in.dellertronic said:
Yep the one elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the referendum result in Liverpool and has run off to London rather than explain to her constituents why she lied to them in 2017.Floater said:
Is she the one from Liverpool that Tim formerly of this parish got on well with?Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
God only knows what he makes of Labour now
0 -
No criticism of it on BBC radio news. Political balance between the parties was achieved by quoting the Lib Dems attacking Labour's WASPI policy and Labour defending it.Banterman said:Been out all day. Did the Tories manifest land well today? No feel for it at all.
0 -
Being called a mindless Labour drone is one of the better attacks I've got on here, have a like1
-
The tories weren't in power, those parties that were in power have to take the blameCorrectHorseBattery said:
So do you support more regulation or not? You're all over the shop.Floater said:
YEp - Labour always doesCorrectHorseBattery said:
I supported more regulation, New Labour did a piss poor job.Floater said:
LOL - right back at youCorrectHorseBattery said:
The Tories wanted less regulation.Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
It's honestly like you live on another planet
I remember clearly what happened and the part your piss poor regulation played in it.
The original point was that it's literally insane to suggest that if the Tories had been in charge, this story would have been any different. The right were in charge in the USA, how did they handle it? Terribly.
That includes Labour0 -
+1Floater said:
Nope - I don't like any party particularly.Gallowgate said:
You’re more than happy to swallow the horse manure that comes out of Boris and friends’s mouths without any evidence. What’s different?Floater said:
So, if your concerned about a deficit you clearly will reject Labour?Gallowgate said:
Evidence of what? We are still running a deficit and Brexit is going to result in less tax money and less growth. Simple. Other people’s money.Floater said:
Evidence pleaseGallowgate said:
And you’re going to run out of other people’s money paying for Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
The Tories weren't in government, Labour were. Labour overspent as they always do. Problem with Labour is they always run out of other people's money.IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Still waiting for evidence
I like my local Lib Dem candidate as he strikes me as a true public servant and I have said so repeatedly.
But the bottom line is the sewer dwelling marxists have to be kept out of power - literally everything else is secondary.
The tories are therefore the least worse choice
and least worst?1 -
I am saying Labour is to blame. I literally said that above. Have it again: they were to blame.Floater said:
The tories weren't in power, those parties that were in power have to take the blameCorrectHorseBattery said:
So do you support more regulation or not? You're all over the shop.Floater said:
YEp - Labour always doesCorrectHorseBattery said:
I supported more regulation, New Labour did a piss poor job.Floater said:
LOL - right back at youCorrectHorseBattery said:
The Tories wanted less regulation.Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
It's honestly like you live on another planet
I remember clearly what happened and the part your piss poor regulation played in it.
The original point was that it's literally insane to suggest that if the Tories had been in charge, this story would have been any different. The right were in charge in the USA, how did they handle it? Terribly.
That includes Labour
I'm simply saying the Tories wouldn't have managed it any better, that is all.0 -
Let me ask you something. Are you wrong about anything, ever?CorrectHorseBattery said:
I don't believe I told you what my age was. I said I was relatively young but I don't reveal personal details on the Internet, so let's have no more discussion about that thank you.ydoethur said:
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).
I supported more regulation which people like Vince Cable - to his credit - supported and warned of the crash before it happened. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of regulation, just that in my short experience unfettered capitalism always leads to disaster.
And actually you previously said you are a “young” person. Being generous and guessing you are 26 - GFC started in 2007 so by any stretch of maths you would have been at school.
0 -
There is nothing "progressive" about helping Jeremy Corbyn win. Huge swathes of the British Left have sold their souls.CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
I will never ever vote for a Tory Party let by Boris Johnson. If they get a new leader more like Cameron or Clegg I would consider it. Of course I'd look at the policies first.Gabs3 said:
There is nothing "progressive" about helping Jeremy Corbyn win. Huge swathes of the British Left have sold their souls.CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
Badoer has been unfairly maligned, he would have scored points under the current system.TheScreamingEagles said:
He plays for Manchester United, he's the Luca Badoer of defenders.Morris_Dancer said:What is the meaning of his 'Phil Jones' to whom you refer?
Edited extra bit: *this, even.
Badoer holds the record for the most Grand Prix starts (50) and the most race laps completed (2364) without scoring a point,[1] although all of his races before his 2009 comeback came during a period when only the top six finishers scored points. Under the 2010 scoring system, he would have scored 26 points over his career.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Badoer0 -
I'm not revealing my age, let's drop that.ozymandias said:
Let me ask you something. Are you wrong about anything, ever?CorrectHorseBattery said:
I don't believe I told you what my age was. I said I was relatively young but I don't reveal personal details on the Internet, so let's have no more discussion about that thank you.ydoethur said:
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).
I supported more regulation which people like Vince Cable - to his credit - supported and warned of the crash before it happened. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of regulation, just that in my short experience unfettered capitalism always leads to disaster.
And actually you previously said you are a “young” person. Being generous and guessing you are 26 - GFC started in 2007 so by any stretch of maths you would have been at school.
I am often wrong, I think we're very likely to see a Tory majority - and I predicted that wouldn't ever happen. So I got that wrong for sure.0 -
Has it? All I saw was some idiot finding out that increasing numbers often means a combination of recruitment and retention. Honest this modem need for a “gotcha” moment is depressing.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Arguably does give Labour some room to push their policies though. I note the nurses pledge has already been debunked.Time_to_Leave said:Basically, there’s nothing new or noteworthy in the Tory manifesto and we’ll have forgotten about it in 24 hours. It just reinforces the lines to date. That’s mission accomplished isn’t it?
0 -
You said you were a university student in 2017. I am assuming that was undergraduate but let’s assume you did postgrad work (as several posters here have). You might therefore have been 25 in June 2017. That would put your DOB sometime in the early 1990s - around 1992 at the earliest. So you would have been at best 15 when the crisis hit.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I don't believe I told you what my age was. I said I was relatively young but I don't reveal personal details on the Internet, so let's have no more discussion about that thank you.ydoethur said:
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).
I supported more regulation which people like Vince Cable - to his credit - supported and warned of the crash before it happened. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of regulation, just that in my short experience unfettered capitalism always leads to disaster.
Of course, you might be a mature student. But you have also repeatedly said you are a ‘young’ person in your mid-twenties.
You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say you are young and can speak for your demographic, and then that you were wise to highly complex economic events when you would have barely left primary school. That merely makes you look silly.
You can say you now support greater regulation and with hindsight NewLabour were wrong. That’s no problem. After all, those of us around at the time mostly missed the key weaknesses as well so we can hardly criticise you for using hindsight. I was doing a Masters in politics and economics and I missed most of the warning signs (my very confident prediction was of a London house price crash, which shows what I knew). But don’t try To have it both ways.1 -
Yep, we can all see you're a floating voterCorrectHorseBattery said:
I will never ever vote for a Tory Party let by Boris Johnson. If they get a new leader more like Cameron or Clegg I would consider it. Of course I'd look at the policies first.Gabs3 said:
There is nothing "progressive" about helping Jeremy Corbyn win. Huge swathes of the British Left have sold their souls.CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
I support greater regulation and in hindsight New Labour were absolutely wrong.ydoethur said:
You said you were a university student in 2017. I am assuming that was undergraduate but let’s assume you did postgrad work (as several posters here have). You might therefore have been 25 in June 2017. That would put your DOB sometime in the early 1990s - around 1992 at the earliest. So you would have been at best 15 when the crisis hit.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I don't believe I told you what my age was. I said I was relatively young but I don't reveal personal details on the Internet, so let's have no more discussion about that thank you.ydoethur said:
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).
I supported more regulation which people like Vince Cable - to his credit - supported and warned of the crash before it happened. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of regulation, just that in my short experience unfettered capitalism always leads to disaster.
Of course, you might be a mature student. But you have also repeatedly said you are a ‘young’ person in your mid-twenties.
You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say you are young and can speak for your demographic, and then that you were wise to highly complex economic events when you would have barely left primary school. That merely makes you look silly.
You can say you now support greater regulation and with hindsight NewLabour were wrong. That’s no problem. After all, those of us around at the time mostly missed the key weaknesses as well so we can hardly criticise you for using hindsight. I was doing a Masters in politics and economics and I missed most of the warning signs (my very confident prediction was of a London house price crash, which shows what I knew). But don’t try To have it both ways.0 -
Well., I will never ever vote for a Labour Party led by Corbyn or his ilk. I really was going to vote LD this time (I did in the Euro's) but the imperative is to stop Corbyn, ergo Boris gets my vote even though its a tory seat.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I will never ever vote for a Tory Party let by Boris Johnson. If they get a new leader more like Cameron or Clegg I would consider it. Of course I'd look at the policies first.Gabs3 said:
There is nothing "progressive" about helping Jeremy Corbyn win. Huge swathes of the British Left have sold their souls.CorrectHorseBattery said:1 -
Each to their own. All the best.squareroot2 said:
Well., I will never ever vote for a Labour Party led by Corbyn or his ilk. I really was going to vote LD this time (I did in the Euro's) but the imperative is to stop Corbyn, ergo Boris gets my vote even though its a tory seat.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I will never ever vote for a Tory Party let by Boris Johnson. If they get a new leader more like Cameron or Clegg I would consider it. Of course I'd look at the policies first.Gabs3 said:
There is nothing "progressive" about helping Jeremy Corbyn win. Huge swathes of the British Left have sold their souls.CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth of this tale or your friend's integrity, but is he unaware that Johnson was sacked twice from senior post for lying, masqueraded as a pro-business pro-Europe candidate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.ydoethur said:
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’
I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.2 -
His personal life is irrelevant.Peter_the_Punter said:
Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth of this tale or your friend's integrity, but is he unaware that Johnson was sacked twice from senior post for lying, masqueraded as a pro-business pro-Europe candidate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.ydoethur said:
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’
I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.0 -
No I didn't predict the financial crash and no I didn't think at the time it was going to happen. In hindsight that was obviously wrong. It's unfortunate that Vince Cable wasn't listened to and I wish I had.0
-
Yes.Peter_the_Punter said:
Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth of this tale or your friend's integrity, but is he unaware that Johnson was sacked twice from senior post for lying, masqueraded as a pro-business pro-Europe candidate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.ydoethur said:
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’
I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.
That’s why I was stunned.
Admittedly, most of your criticisms could actually be aimed at Corbyn as well. They are very similar people. Johnson is more devious, by virtue of being rather brighter, but that’s the only real difference.0 -
That’s fine. Don’t try and pretend again that you understood it at the time.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I support greater regulation and in hindsight New Labour were absolutely wrong.ydoethur said:
You said you were a university student in 2017. I am assuming that was undergraduate but let’s assume you did postgrad work (as several posters here have). You might therefore have been 25 in June 2017. That would put your DOB sometime in the early 1990s - around 1992 at the earliest. So you would have been at best 15 when the crisis hit.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I don't believe I told you what my age was. I said I was relatively young but I don't reveal personal details on the Internet, so let's have no more discussion about that thank you.ydoethur said:
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).
I supported more regulation which people like Vince Cable - to his credit - supported and warned of the crash before it happened. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of regulation, just that in my short experience unfettered capitalism always leads to disaster.
Of course, you might be a mature student. But you have also repeatedly said you are a ‘young’ person in your mid-twenties.
You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say you are young and can speak for your demographic, and then that you were wise to highly complex economic events when you would have barely left primary school. That merely makes you look silly.
You can say you now support greater regulation and with hindsight NewLabour were wrong. That’s no problem. After all, those of us around at the time mostly missed the key weaknesses as well so we can hardly criticise you for using hindsight. I was doing a Masters in politics and economics and I missed most of the warning signs (my very confident prediction was of a London house price crash, which shows what I knew). But don’t try To have it both ways.
You’re lucky. You bear no blame at all for the crash. Why try and pretend differently?0 -
Mr. Eagles, *consults records*
Someone following my tips this F1 season would be ahead in both the first and second halves. Behold my surprisingly profitable tips!0 -
It's interesting that the Tories have a few bn unaccounted for in their infrastructure budget. Hopefully it's for something exciting. I'll be honest, I'm pretty underwhelmed. I think by fearing they'll make 'the same mistake' (unpopular policy announcement) again, they've actually made the real same mistake - thinking that just not being Labour is enough. It is not enough, you have to speak to people's ambitions and aspirations. However, they have time and opportunity to do better.0
-
Actually we wouldn't have, Peter Lilley made a very prescient criticism of the regulatory system Brown brought in which literally predicted the exact problems that the banking crisis exposed in the regulatory system.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I am saying Labour is to blame. I literally said that above. Have it again: they were to blame.
I'm simply saying the Tories wouldn't have managed it any better, that is all.
More regulations are useless if they are just an exercise in box ticking.0 -
But like every other Labour MP she lied to get elected in 2017, has not apologised for doing so and cannot be trusted now for that very reasonkle4 said:
There were other factors. And chicken running may not be dignified, but having changed parties there's no reason someone should be forced to stand in a seat they have no hope in.dellertronic said:
Yep the one elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the referendum result in Liverpool and has run off to London rather than explain to her constituents why she lied to them in 2017.Floater said:
Is she the one from Liverpool that Tim formerly of this parish got on well with?Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
God only knows what he makes of Labour now0 -
It was a stupid thing to say.ydoethur said:
That’s fine. Don’t try and pretend again that you understood it at the time.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I support greater regulation and in hindsight New Labour were absolutely wrong.ydoethur said:
You said you were a university student in 2017. I am assuming that was undergraduate but let’s assume you did postgrad work (as several posters here have). You might therefore have been 25 in June 2017. That would put your DOB sometime in the early 1990s - around 1992 at the earliest. So you would have been at best 15 when the crisis hit.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I don't believe I told you what my age was. I said I was relatively young but I don't reveal personal details on the Internet, so let's have no more discussion about that thank you.ydoethur said:
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).
I supported more regulation which people like Vince Cable - to his credit - supported and warned of the crash before it happened. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of regulation, just that in my short experience unfettered capitalism always leads to disaster.
Of course, you might be a mature student. But you have also repeatedly said you are a ‘young’ person in your mid-twenties.
You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say you are young and can speak for your demographic, and then that you were wise to highly complex economic events when you would have barely left primary school. That merely makes you look silly.
You can say you now support greater regulation and with hindsight NewLabour were wrong. That’s no problem. After all, those of us around at the time mostly missed the key weaknesses as well so we can hardly criticise you for using hindsight. I was doing a Masters in politics and economics and I missed most of the warning signs (my very confident prediction was of a London house price crash, which shows what I knew). But don’t try To have it both ways.
You’re lucky. You bear no blame at all for the crash. Why try and pretend differently?0 -
Well, in fairness, we’ve all done that as well...CorrectHorseBattery said:
It was a stupid thing to say.ydoethur said:
That’s fine. Don’t try and pretend again that you understood it at the time.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I support greater regulation and in hindsight New Labour were absolutely wrong.ydoethur said:
You said you were a university student in 2017. I am assuming that was undergraduate but let’s assume you did postgrad work (as several posters here have). You might therefore have been 25 in June 2017. That would put your DOB sometime in the early 1990s - around 1992 at the earliest. So you would have been at best 15 when the crisis hit.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I don't believe I told you what my age was. I said I was relatively young but I don't reveal personal details on the Internet, so let's have no more discussion about that thank you.ydoethur said:
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).
I supported more regulation which people like Vince Cable - to his credit - supported and warned of the crash before it happened. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of regulation, just that in my short experience unfettered capitalism always leads to disaster.
Of course, you might be a mature student. But you have also repeatedly said you are a ‘young’ person in your mid-twenties.
You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say you are young and can speak for your demographic, and then that you were wise to highly complex economic events when you would have barely left primary school. That merely makes you look silly.
You can say you now support greater regulation and with hindsight NewLabour were wrong. That’s no problem. After all, those of us around at the time mostly missed the key weaknesses as well so we can hardly criticise you for using hindsight. I was doing a Masters in politics and economics and I missed most of the warning signs (my very confident prediction was of a London house price crash, which shows what I knew). But don’t try To have it both ways.
You’re lucky. You bear no blame at all for the crash. Why try and pretend differently?0 -
Yes but it is worth acknowledging it and I will hold my hands up for that.ydoethur said:
Well, in fairness, we’ve all done that as well...CorrectHorseBattery said:
It was a stupid thing to say.ydoethur said:
That’s fine. Don’t try and pretend again that you understood it at the time.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I support greater regulation and in hindsight New Labour were absolutely wrong.ydoethur said:
You said you were a university student in 2017. I am assuming that was undergraduate but let’s assume you did postgrad work (as several posters here have). You might therefore have been 25 in June 2017. That would put your DOB sometime in the early 1990s - around 1992 at the earliest. So you would have been at best 15 when the crisis hit.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I don't believe I told you what my age was. I said I was relatively young but I don't reveal personal details on the Internet, so let's have no more discussion about that thank you.ydoethur said:
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).
I supported more regulation which people like Vince Cable - to his credit - supported and warned of the crash before it happened. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of regulation, just that in my short experience unfettered capitalism always leads to disaster.
Of course, you might be a mature student. But you have also repeatedly said you are a ‘young’ person in your mid-twenties.
You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say you are young and can speak for your demographic, and then that you were wise to highly complex economic events when you would have barely left primary school. That merely makes you look silly.
You can say you now support greater regulation and with hindsight NewLabour were wrong. That’s no problem. After all, those of us around at the time mostly missed the key weaknesses as well so we can hardly criticise you for using hindsight. I was doing a Masters in politics and economics and I missed most of the warning signs (my very confident prediction was of a London house price crash, which shows what I knew). But don’t try To have it both ways.
You’re lucky. You bear no blame at all for the crash. Why try and pretend differently?0 -
It is a blessed relief that I do not have to vote for either. If I did have to choose just between the two, honesty would be only one of many criteria I would apply. Were I to decide however on just that one factor, Corbyn would have to win, by some distance.ydoethur said:
Yes.Peter_the_Punter said:
Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth of this tale or your friend's integrity, but is he unaware that Johnson was sacked twice from senior post for lying, masqueraded as a pro-business pro-Europe candidate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.ydoethur said:
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’
I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.
That’s why I was stunned.
Admittedly, most of your criticisms could actually be aimed at Corbyn as well. They are very similar people. Johnson is more devious, by virtue of being rather brighter, but that’s the only real difference.
Frankly, I don't think that particular case needs arguing.1 -
Yeah either this hack has no understanding of how MRP works or the No 10 spad doesn't. Either way, sad how many people in our public life are so thick.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1198540634635800578
Can interpret this many ways...0 -
Don't forget Brown did save the world!ydoethur said:
I think Labour would be less damaged by the GFC if somebody had resigned over it promptly and honourably. If they had said, ‘Whoop, guys, I got this wrong and as a result I am going to quit,’ I think enough people wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt to save their political bacon.Floater said:
Including pointing out how shit the regulation was?IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.
Labour fecked up royally
Let alone that no more boom and bust crap - so lets spend, spend spend
But the two who were responsible were Brown, who ran the huge deficits, and Darling, who devised the disastrous tripartite system. Brown was apparently very contrite in private, but his truly laughable claim in public that he had never said ‘no more boom and bust’ coupled with his refusal to resign shredded his reputation. Darling, meanwhile, saved his personal reputation at the cost of prolonging the agony for his government by not going even when Brown tried to sack him.
Major and Lamont redux, in a way.0 -
If a recession hits then we will need countercyclical spending. That is the time to expand into a deficit, not before a recession.NorthernPowerhouse said:
It's a warning for any party who think their best laid plans wont be thrown of course by events. Guarantees to not increase income tax or vat can really bit if we hit a recession and the budget goes into freefall. Not if, but when...Philip_Thompson said:
The Tories weren't in government, Labour were. Labour overspent as they always do. Problem with Labour is they always run out of other people's money.IanB2 said:
Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.CorrectHorseBattery said:
No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?RobD said:
Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010roserees64 said:Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.
If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.
It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.
Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.0 -
I do not disagree with his assessment of Corbyn, but does he realise Boris is leading the Conservatives? The man for whom the test of whether he is lying is whether his mouth is open.ydoethur said:
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’3 -
Corbyn would not win on honesty. Even though he’s up against Johnson. That’s a damning comment but it’s also true.Peter_the_Punter said:
It is a blessed relief that I do not have to vote for either. If I did have to choose just between the two, honesty would be only one of many criteria I would apply. Were I to decide however on just that one factor, Corbyn would have to win, by some distance.ydoethur said:
Yes.Peter_the_Punter said:
Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth of this tale or your friend's integrity, but is he unaware that Johnson was sacked twice from senior post for lying, masqueraded as a pro-business pro-Europe candidate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.ydoethur said:
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’
I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.
That’s why I was stunned.
Admittedly, most of your criticisms could actually be aimed at Corbyn as well. They are very similar people. Johnson is more devious, by virtue of being rather brighter, but that’s the only real difference.
Frankly, I don't think that particular case needs arguing.
I am in the highly unfortunate position where I do effectively have to choose between them. For the first time in 18 years of voting in every election including parish council by-elections and the referendum for Ceredigion to have an elected mayor I am very seriously considering spoiling my ballot paper.0 -
Averaging the mid GE seat markets of the two spread-betting firms, the Tories are +4.5 today at a campaign high of 346.5 seats, Labour are -2 at 206.5 seats and the LibUndems are down -2.5 at a new campaign low 26 seats.
On the basis of these numbers the Tories are set for a majority of 43 seats, which corresponds closely with a number of other recent forecasts.0 -
We'll see before long, should be under 10 weeks until we Brexit now. Your relentless pessimism hopefully won't survive the reality of Brexit being fine.Peter_the_Punter said:
Regarding conservatism, neither critical nor approving, Philip - just factual.Philip_Thompson said:
Good. Though it sounds like you're being critical, that is good news. Since when has the Conservative Party been petrified of making some radical policies where necessary? Every good Tory PM of my lifetime has been radical and revolutionary when necessary.Peter_the_Punter said:
Brexit is by far the most radical and revolutionary policy of my lifetime. There is nothing conservative about this Conservative Party.TimT said:
Should not be an 'ouch' to true conservatives - limiting change (conserving what is) is what conservatism is.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Thatcher - Do I need to expand on this? Her name is synonymous with radical and revolutionary.
Cameron - Equal marriage, bringing the country back from the brink of bankruptcy after Brown, holding the referendum in the first place.
Major was OK but not great, he was weak and pretty useless post Black Wednesday and led to the worst election drubbing ever.
May was neither radical nor revolutionary and she was a pathetic, dismal failure.
If Boris is going to be like Cameron/Thatcher in being confident to take the country forward rather than follow the path of worst PM ever Theresa May then that is good news is it not?
I'm not old enough to have been alive under any other Tory PMs but being radical and revolutionary at the right times has been a strength not a weakness for many.
I go back to Atlee, who was pretty radical, so yes, I agree, radicalism can be positive or negative. Depends on the policy, the circumstances, and the options.
Brexit is radical alright, and the stupidest policy any government has tried to implement in my lifetime, but if you haven't worked that out yet, can't help you.0 -
I disagree.alb1on said:
I do not disagree with his assessment of Corbyn, but does he realise Boris is leading the Conservatives? The man for whom the test of whether he is lying is whether his mouth is open.ydoethur said:
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’
He’s a journalist. He lies with his mouth closed too.3 -
You cannot imagine how much I hope you are right and I am wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
We'll see before long, should be under 10 weeks until we Brexit now. Your relentless pessimism hopefully won't survive the reality of Brexit being fine.Peter_the_Punter said:
Regarding conservatism, neither critical nor approving, Philip - just factual.Philip_Thompson said:
Good. Though it sounds like you're being critical, that is good news. Since when has the Conservative Party been petrified of making some radical policies where necessary? Every good Tory PM of my lifetime has been radical and revolutionary when necessary.Peter_the_Punter said:
Brexit is by far the most radical and revolutionary policy of my lifetime. There is nothing conservative about this Conservative Party.TimT said:
Should not be an 'ouch' to true conservatives - limiting change (conserving what is) is what conservatism is.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Thatcher - Do I need to expand on this? Her name is synonymous with radical and revolutionary.
Cameron - Equal marriage, bringing the country back from the brink of bankruptcy after Brown, holding the referendum in the first place.
Major was OK but not great, he was weak and pretty useless post Black Wednesday and led to the worst election drubbing ever.
May was neither radical nor revolutionary and she was a pathetic, dismal failure.
If Boris is going to be like Cameron/Thatcher in being confident to take the country forward rather than follow the path of worst PM ever Theresa May then that is good news is it not?
I'm not old enough to have been alive under any other Tory PMs but being radical and revolutionary at the right times has been a strength not a weakness for many.
I go back to Atlee, who was pretty radical, so yes, I agree, radicalism can be positive or negative. Depends on the policy, the circumstances, and the options.
Brexit is radical alright, and the stupidest policy any government has tried to implement in my lifetime, but if you haven't worked that out yet, can't help you.1 -
When’s the ELBOW landing?0
-
Yep 🏆TheScreamingEagles said:
Prescient, ahem.Philip_Thompson said:
Liverpool now 20 points ahead of Man Utd after today. I'll take that prescience!0 -
The test is not whether one has ever said anything stupid - excluding the mute, the category of those who have not is very small indeed - but rather whether one has ever said anything intelligent...CorrectHorseBattery said:
It was a stupid thing to say.ydoethur said:
That’s fine. Don’t try and pretend again that you understood it at the time.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I support greater regulation and in hindsight New Labour were absolutely wrong.ydoethur said:
You said you were a university student in 2017. I am assuming that was undergraduate but let’s assume you did postgrad work (as several posters here have). You might therefore have been 25 in June 2017. That would put your DOB sometime in the early 1990s - around 1992 at the earliest. So you would have been at best 15 when the crisis hit.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I don't believe I told you what my age was. I said I was relatively young but I don't reveal personal details on the Internet, so let's have no more discussion about that thank you.ydoethur said:
Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?
Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).
I supported more regulation which people like Vince Cable - to his credit - supported and warned of the crash before it happened. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of regulation, just that in my short experience unfettered capitalism always leads to disaster.
Of course, you might be a mature student. But you have also repeatedly said you are a ‘young’ person in your mid-twenties.
You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say you are young and can speak for your demographic, and then that you were wise to highly complex economic events when you would have barely left primary school. That merely makes you look silly.
You can say you now support greater regulation and with hindsight NewLabour were wrong. That’s no problem. After all, those of us around at the time mostly missed the key weaknesses as well so we can hardly criticise you for using hindsight. I was doing a Masters in politics and economics and I missed most of the warning signs (my very confident prediction was of a London house price crash, which shows what I knew). But don’t try To have it both ways.
You’re lucky. You bear no blame at all for the crash. Why try and pretend differently?
0 -
Stop laughing at the back there!maaarsh said:
Yep, we can all see you're a floating voterCorrectHorseBattery said:
I will never ever vote for a Tory Party let by Boris Johnson. If they get a new leader more like Cameron or Clegg I would consider it. Of course I'd look at the policies first.Gabs3 said:
There is nothing "progressive" about helping Jeremy Corbyn win. Huge swathes of the British Left have sold their souls.CorrectHorseBattery said:1 -
Do you think we're illiterate?CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/prospect_clark/status/1198625952898658305
Another broken promise
I can read in that snippet quoted a pledge for a billion pounds next year and additional funding every year. Could you not read that?1 -
If it helps, I can teach you how to draw a dick.ydoethur said:
Corbyn would not win on honesty. Even though he’s up against Johnson. That’s a damning comment but it’s also true.Peter_the_Punter said:
It is a blessed relief that I do not have to vote for either. If I did have to choose just between the two, honesty would be only one of many criteria I would apply. Were I to decide however on just that one factor, Corbyn would have to win, by some distance.ydoethur said:
Yes.Peter_the_Punter said:
Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth of this tale or your friend's integrity, but is he unaware that Johnson was sacked twice from senior post for lying, masqueraded as a pro-business pro-Europe candidate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.ydoethur said:
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’
I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.
That’s why I was stunned.
Admittedly, most of your criticisms could actually be aimed at Corbyn as well. They are very similar people. Johnson is more devious, by virtue of being rather brighter, but that’s the only real difference.
Frankly, I don't think that particular case needs arguing.
I am in the highly unfortunate position where I do effectively have to choose between them. For the first time in 18 years of voting in every election including parish council by-elections and the referendum for Ceredigion to have an elected mayor I am very seriously considering spoiling my ballot paper.0 -
I find this narrative about the PM being a liar fascinating, precisely because It shows how we each live in our own realities.Peter_the_Punter said:
It is a blessed relief that I do not have to vote for either. If I did have to choose just between the two, honesty would be only one of many criteria I would apply. Were I to decide however on just that one factor, Corbyn would have to win, by some distance.ydoethur said:
Yes.Peter_the_Punter said:
Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth of this tale or your friend's integrity, but is he unaware that Johnson was sacked twice from senior post for lying, masqueraded as a pro-business pro-Europe candidate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.ydoethur said:
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’
I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.
That’s why I was stunned.
Admittedly, most of your criticisms could actually be aimed at Corbyn as well. They are very similar people. Johnson is more devious, by virtue of being rather brighter, but that’s the only real difference.
Frankly, I don't think that particular case needs arguing.
As far as you are concerned he has deliberately mislead people in a systematic way, and this marks him out as uniquely dishonest. I see him as, at worst, like any other politician and, at best, more likely to say what he thinks.
I can’t recall a political character that led to two such different, honestly held, views of them.0 -
I have followed the comments about city regulation with some interest, having had to deal with the FSA (predecessor of the FCA during the Blair/Brown years). It was a standing joke that the staff at the FSA were those who could not get a job at one of the companies, or were so incompetent that they had been sacked by a company. The director responsible for our oversight was from a mortgage background and had so little knowledge of retail insurance that I had to explain the absolute basics of how business was transacted between broker and insurer.0
-
A pleasure.viewcode said:
I have said it before and I will say it again: "outwith" is one of the greatest gifts of Scotland to the English language. It is a really handy word.StuartDickson said:
... lose some seats outwith the Central Belt...CarlottaVance said:Apols if posted before:
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1198399096853278721?s=20
0 -
There were nearly 4,000 people working at the FSA, and no shortage of regulation, but in the end it was completely bloody useless.MaxPB said:
Actually we wouldn't have, Peter Lilley made a very prescient criticism of the regulatory system Brown brought in which literally predicted the exact problems that the banking crisis exposed in the regulatory system.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I am saying Labour is to blame. I literally said that above. Have it again: they were to blame.
I'm simply saying the Tories wouldn't have managed it any better, that is all.
More regulations are useless if they are just an exercise in box ticking.0 -
It doesn’t:Peter_the_Punter said:
If it helps, I can teach you how to draw a dick.ydoethur said:
Corbyn would not win on honesty. Even though he’s up against Johnson. That’s a damning comment but it’s also true.Peter_the_Punter said:
It is a blessed relief that I do not have to vote for either. If I did have to choose just between the two, honesty would be only one of many criteria I would apply. Were I to decide however on just that one factor, Corbyn would have to win, by some distance.ydoethur said:
Yes.Peter_the_Punter said:
Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth of this tale or your friend's integrity, but is he unaware that Johnson was sacked twice from senior post for lying, masqueraded as a pro-business pro-Europe candidate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.ydoethur said:
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’
I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.
That’s why I was stunned.
Admittedly, most of your criticisms could actually be aimed at Corbyn as well. They are very similar people. Johnson is more devious, by virtue of being rather brighter, but that’s the only real difference.
Frankly, I don't think that particular case needs arguing.
I am in the highly unfortunate position where I do effectively have to choose between them. For the first time in 18 years of voting in every election including parish council by-elections and the referendum for Ceredigion to have an elected mayor I am very seriously considering spoiling my ballot paper.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32658907/election-2015-mp-thanks-voter-for-penis-ballot-paper-mark1 -
PtP and PfP posting in the same thread.
A coalition of chaos?1 -
Spending more money =/= a plan, isn't that what PB Tories are always saying?Philip_Thompson said:
Do you think we're illiterate?CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/prospect_clark/status/1198625952898658305
Another broken promise
I can read in that snippet quoted a pledge for a billion pounds next year and additional funding every year. Could you not read that?1 -
Oh please, that old sage Vince had predicted six of the last two recessions.CorrectHorseBattery said:No I didn't predict the financial crash and no I didn't think at the time it was going to happen. In hindsight that was obviously wrong. It's unfortunate that Vince Cable wasn't listened to and I wish I had.
1 -
Anyone have the data tables for that Survation poll?0
-
It would explain a lot.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you think we're illiterate?CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/prospect_clark/status/1198625952898658305
Another broken promise
I can read in that snippet quoted a pledge for a billion pounds next year and additional funding every year. Could you not read that?0 -
Careful Sandy, there is a serious penalty for confusing the two.SandyRentool said:PtP and PfP posting in the same thread.
A coalition of chaos?0 -
Real cliff hanger, this one.
3 -
Chucking money at everything is not a plan.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Spending more money =/= a plan, isn't that what PB Tories are always saying?Philip_Thompson said:
Do you think we're illiterate?CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/prospect_clark/status/1198625952898658305
Another broken promise
I can read in that snippet quoted a pledge for a billion pounds next year and additional funding every year. Could you not read that?
Targetting funds specifically where it is required can be.0 -
Will anyone be their Andrei Sakharov?Time_to_Leave said:Real cliff hanger, this one.
0 -
Trying to make it safe for Tories to vote LibDemBig_G_NorthWales said:
Strange thing for her to say. She must be aware of canvassing figures and not too confidentFloater said:0 -
I'm not a great Vince fan, but this is a classic example of the problems of economic forecasting. So, I can tell you that Germany has a demographics problem as serious as Japan's or Italy's. That means that at some point economic growth will crunch to a halt as an ever greater share of economic output of the young is spent on looking after the old. But I can't tell you when it will happen, as there are a bunch of other factors, such as the direction of the German household savings rate, that will have a lot of near term output.NorthernPowerhouse said:
Oh please, that old sage Vince had predicted six of the last two recessions.CorrectHorseBattery said:No I didn't predict the financial crash and no I didn't think at the time it was going to happen. In hindsight that was obviously wrong. It's unfortunate that Vince Cable wasn't listened to and I wish I had.
A good economist can tell you where you will see problems, but very few can tell you when.1 -
It might be wishful thinking, but I like to think there’s a whiff of fear in how China is handling the protests. Were they to become visible nationwide, and that sort of voice gain a platform? Who knows. I suppose the platform is the tricky bit.ydoethur said:
Will anyone be their Andrei Sakharov?Time_to_Leave said:Real cliff hanger, this one.
0 -
I thought the legislation says 600 and is in force. The Commission keeps preparing reports on this basis and parliament ignoring them.CarlottaVance said:We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy.
Reducing to 600 quietly dropped.
We will make it easier for British expats to vote in Parliamentary elections, and get rid of the arbitrary 15-year limit on their voting rights.
and...
We will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.
Page 48
https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf
No new legislation needed - just a motion accepting the report0 -
It is actually worse than that, TtL. He combines extreme amorality with a self-centred conceit that singles him out as an extraordinarily dangerous and unprincipled individual of a tye that one would be unlikely to encounter in any walk of life.Time_to_Leave said:
I find this narrative about the PM being a liar fascinating, precisely because It shows how we each live in our own realities.Peter_the_Punter said:
It is a bleydoethur said:
Yes.Peter_the_Punter said:
Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth oate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.ydoethur said:
Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.dellertronic said:
Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.Black_Rook said:
Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.rottenborough said:Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593
His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’
I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.
That’s why I was stunned.
Admittedly, most of your criticisms could actually be aimed at Corbyn as well. They are very similar people. Johnson is more devious, by virtue of being rather brighter, but that’s the only real difference.
Frankly, I don't think that particular case needs arguing.
As far as you are concerned he has deliberately mislead people in a systematic way, and this marks him out as uniquely dishonest. I see him as, at worst, like any other politician and, at best, more likely to say what he thinks.
I can’t recall a political character that led to two such different, honestly held, views of them.
I claim to be in something of an advantage over most people in making this assessment. A close relative was at Balliol with him. He wrote a perceptive and informaative article about Johnson several years ago. It remains one of the best pieces on the man I have ever read.
Allow me to send you the link.1 -
Outwith "furth", it is the greatest.StuartDickson said:
A pleasure.viewcode said:
I have said it before and I will say it again: "outwith" is one of the greatest gifts of Scotland to the English language. It is a really handy word.StuartDickson said:
... lose some seats outwith the Central Belt...CarlottaVance said:Apols if posted before:
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1198399096853278721?s=200 -
There was that movement house price crash or something, who predicted a huge house price crash and advocated selling their properties and renting in 2003/4 when average house prices where about £100,000. Yes, they were accurate that a crash was coming, but that crash was at a peak average of £190,000, and even at the bottom of the crash prices dropped to £150,000 and is now well over £220,000.rcs1000 said:
I'm not a great Vince fan, but this is a classic example of the problems of economic forecasting. So, I can tell you that Germany has a demographics problem as serious as Japan's or Italy's. That means that at some point economic growth will crunch to a halt as an ever greater share of economic output of the young is spent on looking after the old. But I can't tell you when it will happen, as there are a bunch of other factors, such as the direction of the German household savings rate, that will have a lot of near term output.NorthernPowerhouse said:
Oh please, that old sage Vince had predicted six of the last two recessions.CorrectHorseBattery said:No I didn't predict the financial crash and no I didn't think at the time it was going to happen. In hindsight that was obviously wrong. It's unfortunate that Vince Cable wasn't listened to and I wish I had.
A good economist can tell you where you will see problems, but very few can tell you when.0 -
If all that they did was useless, I would not mind, 4,000 civil servants pay packets is expensive, but manageable.glw said:
There were nearly 4,000 people working at the FSA, and no shortage of regulation, but in the end it was completely bloody useless.MaxPB said:
Actually we wouldn't have, Peter Lilley made a very prescient criticism of the regulatory system Brown brought in which literally predicted the exact problems that the banking crisis exposed in the regulatory system.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I am saying Labour is to blame. I literally said that above. Have it again: they were to blame.
I'm simply saying the Tories wouldn't have managed it any better, that is all.
More regulations are useless if they are just an exercise in box ticking.
Sadly they IMO termed a normal small oscillation in the business cycle in to a very significant economic downturn that we are still living with.0 -
Can the new Parliament accept the prior Commission's report?Charles said:
I thought the legislation says 600 and is in force. The Commission keeps preparing reports on this basis and parliament ignoring them.CarlottaVance said:We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy.
Reducing to 600 quietly dropped.
We will make it easier for British expats to vote in Parliamentary elections, and get rid of the arbitrary 15-year limit on their voting rights.
and...
We will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.
Page 48
https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf
No new legislation needed - just a motion accepting the report
And will the Commission produce a new report that might supersede that before the next election?0 -
I think Carrie Lam is finished. I know these votes have almost no influence on electing the Chief Exec but Beijing will be going up the wall right now. Her job is to manage integration without anyone noticing and she’s failed spectacularly.Time_to_Leave said:
It might be wishful thinking, but I like to think there’s a whiff of fear in how China is handling the protests. Were they to become visible nationwide, and that sort of voice gain a platform? Who knows. I suppose the platform is the tricky bit.ydoethur said:
Will anyone be their Andrei Sakharov?Time_to_Leave said:Real cliff hanger, this one.
What Xi does next is the main, and rather more alarming, question.3
This discussion has been closed.