General Election Is On

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:37 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:I couldn't give a toss who runs the railways or any other industry, so long as the tax payer doesn't pick up the bill. I don't care if it breaks even, fine. But if it starts to drain the countrys coffers it's the poor that will pay, I won't suffer. Investment in modern rolling stock, refurbing stations, the ongoing costs are tremendous. In other countries it normally works because the state fund it, I don't believe the state should fund the rail network, as I've stated it takes money away from the Health Service, Pensions etc. If they can achieve that fine, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Given this, what do you think of the fact we subsidise the rail network by many more times than we did under state control? Network Rail is still owned by the public and has a £9 Billion debt. The state makes all the losses while the fat cats make all the profits.

Cameron also said the state shouldn’t be in the business of running railways - though most of our franchises are run by the state owned railways of other countries. So our commuters subsidise those of other countries. This is what taking back control looks like.

Railways should be owned by the British people, and run for the British people.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:42 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:It’s been reported that the brexit party could step aside in key West Midlands seats targeted by the tories to avoid splitting the leave vote, the party are still deciding on a strategy.

I spoke to a Brexit party official earlier today.

Nothing is anywhere near being decided as yet.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:43 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:Andrew, you have a very miopic view on the state of this country, of course people on the streets die, its very sad, but it isn't always the fault of the government. Mental Health, drugs they all play a part in how so many people end up on the street. Foodbanks are a necessary evil and I'd much rather they weren't needed, but a lot of it could be prevented with better education, especially social/domestic education. We live in a generation of fast food diets, where you pay twice as much for a meal because it's easier than cooking for yourself. Thats sad. it also distracts from the genuine in need, who don't have the option of cooking for themselves.
In modern Britain, today, people live longer, are healthier, earn more, enjoy more leisure time, more people live in their own homes than ever, more people are in employment, fewer people are unemployed, they have numerous mod cons to make life easier, from TV remotes to computers. The people today have genuinely never had it so good. Seriously, find yourself a 90 year old and ask them what they had to go through, what they had to do without when they were children.
Now I'm not saying life is perfect, because it isn't, and it never will be. There will always be people who slip through the cracks of society, and we should be there to help them, as the good socialists we are, but don't let it blind you to all the things that are right because you are missing out on so much. Your negativity is a millstone around your neck.

Actually, the rich have never had it so good. Average people have seen stagnant wages since 2008, and seen heavy cuts to services since then too. Arguably we did have it better before the Tories.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:47 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:I spoke to a Brexit party official earlier today.

Nothing is anywhere near being decided as yet.

I know, it'd make sense if the tories & brexit party could make a pact together.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:54 pm

Cryssys wrote:In 2016 18% of the UK population was aged 65 or over, this is forecast to increase to 22% in 2030 (source: ONS)

That's hardly exponential is it?

It is because in 2030 the population will be greater than it is today.
So not only a larger number of people, but a larger percentage of old people.
Expotential.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:56 pm

GE results Tory plus Ukip%:-

2010 39%
2015 48.5%
2017 44.2%

The Bp would be mad to stand in places that voted leave other than the likes of Salford.

Because UKIP was 12.6% in 2015 and no seats

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:01 pm

[quote="Cryssys"][/quote]
You are confusing fault and responsibility.
It isnt the governments fault that so many people live on the streets, there are many different reasons, many different backstories that contribute.
Who's responsible, all of us. Society is built from the ground up. You learn it from your parents, you pass it on to your children, and hopefully they go out and share it with the world.
It shouldnt be governments job to dictate to us how to keep an eye on or help our neighbours or neighbourhood, it should be inherent in us all, sadly it isnt. Is that the governments fault or ours.

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:07 pm

I got a leaflet through the door yesterday telling me Jo Swinson is the next British PM,is that it now do we forget the 2016 referendum and just carry on like the last three years never happened?

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:17 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Given this, what do you think of the fact we subsidise the rail network by many more times than we did under state control? Network Rail is still owned by the public and has a £9 Billion debt. The state makes all the losses while the fat cats make all the profits.

Cameron also said the state shouldn’t be in the business of running railways - though most of our franchises are run by the state owned railways of other countries. So our commuters subsidise those of other countries. This is what taking back control looks like.

Railways should be owned by the British people, and run for the British people.

You mean at any cost to the tax payer??

Who are going to pay more and more taxes under Labour.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:26 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote: You are confusing fault and responsibility.
It isnt the governments fault that so many people live on the streets, there are many different reasons, many different backstories that contribute.
Who's responsible, all of us. Society is built from the ground up. You learn it from your parents, you pass it on to your children, and hopefully they go out and share it with the world.
It shouldnt be governments job to dictate to us how to keep an eye on or help our neighbours or neighbourhood, it should be inherent in us all, sadly it isnt. Is that the governments fault or ours.

No. You are considering responsibility without factoring in circumstance, and the role the government plays in creating circumstances. Ten years of very severe cuts have left many families in dire situations. When you throw in the consequences of this - family breakup, Crimea, mental health issues, and stress, the normal rules around responsibility no longer work as a rational thing.

Put it this way, you say the government shouldn’t be looking after transport, but the NHS. Okay, this is arguably your self interest speaking, but if they stopped looking after the NHS and instead put the money into law enforcement, and this coincided with an expensive illness for you, your family would experience strains like never before, and someone on a messGeboard saying, “that Colburn just needs to take more responsibility” would just sound callous to you.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:29 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:You mean at any cost to the tax payer??

Who are going to pay more and more taxes under Labour.

It’s already expensive because it’s run for profit, by companies that don’t reinvest and probably pay little in tax. It can only improve under Labour!

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:35 pm

So one of the main promises by Labour is the 32 hour week.

So I have a few questions of you masterminds.

Is my employer going to pay me the same wage for only doing 32 hours instead of 37??

Taking a wild guess my salary has to drop pro rata as it would probably bankrupt the company.

Will I be expected to pay the same amount of tax at my previous higher salary or may be even more tax to cover Labours spending.

What happens to my pension?? A salary reduction would mean a big hit on my pension too, which means I would have to work about 5 years longer.

So suddenly a 32 hour week is sounding like a really **** idea.

Thoughts of great ones.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:52 pm

Do you think they are going to try to stop people from working more than 32 hours? Is that what you have read?

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:55 pm

It'll be interesting to see how the proposal takes form in the manifesto. The 4-day/32hr week is a political aspiration rather than a direct legislative policy aim, and its ambitions are to be met within 10 years (which is quite presumptuous by assuming Labour will win back-to-back elections). The theory behind it is to legislate 'around' hour-caps - which absolutely are NOT being proposed by Labour, and would be legally unenforceable anyhow - by legislating to increase the collective bargaining power of workers (typical union stuff, nothing particularly controversial, and the very reason Labour exists), taking into account the effect AI and robotics will, and currently manifestly are, reducing the need for human labour hours, all with the aim of the average working week being reduced to 32 hours, rather than outright reducing it legislatively, if that makes sense.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:57 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote: You are confusing fault and responsibility.
It isnt the governments fault that so many people live on the streets, there are many different reasons, many different backstories that contribute.
Who's responsible, all of us. Society is built from the ground up. You learn it from your parents, you pass it on to your children, and hopefully they go out and share it with the world.
It shouldnt be governments job to dictate to us how to keep an eye on or help our neighbours or neighbourhood, it should be inherent in us all, sadly it isnt. Is that the governments fault or ours.

You spout some absolute crap.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:01 pm

thatdberight wrote:To you - which is a position you often confuse with "inarguably factual". I know people who think that because they believe it's important that the referendum result is acted on. They would, I'm sure, also vote to return to the EU immediately.

No, i think it's objectively dumb as **** to do something you have already reconsidered as a mistake. Imagine deciding to go skydiving, but just before you jump you notice you've forgotten your parachute, do you stick to your original decision and jump or do you not be a ******* moron?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:04 pm

aggi wrote:It's true though. There are plenty of polls showing responses that basically show although a higher proportion have changed their mind about how they would have voted that doesn't necessarily track through to wanting another referendum or Brexit reversed. I'll try and dig some out.

It's not true. Most people who have an opinion want a second referendum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... referendum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:04 pm

You know, we're all just vibrating atomic molecules made of meat. Let's enjoy the ride on this spinning marble until it is all dust.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:05 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No, i think it's objectively dumb as **** to do something you have already reconsidered as a mistake. Imagine deciding to go skydiving, but just before you jump you notice you've forgotten your parachute, do you stick to your original decision and jump or do you not be a ******* moron?

Hopefully you'd jump

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:08 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Hopefully you'd jump

I was going to make that joke about thatdberight but you can bet if I had he, and probably you and a bunch of other snowflakey *****, would have thrown a hissy fit about me wishing him dead.

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:12 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I was going to make that joke about thatdberight but you can bet if I had he, and probably you and a bunch of other snowflakey *****, would have thrown a hissy fit about me wishing him dead.

Imagine the uproar if it was the other way round.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:13 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:I spoke to a Brexit party official earlier today.

Nothing is anywhere near being decided as yet.

No you didn't.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:19 pm

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:No you didn't.

Ok, you stalking me now are you.

You know my every move and phone call.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:23 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:Do you think they are going to try to stop people from working more than 32 hours? Is that what you have read?

Labour policy to move to a 32 hour week.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:23 pm

Very weird that farage isn't all over this election.

He should be absolutely buzzing to get that leave vote on his side, but he's barely said anything.

To avoid doing a UKIP, he has to win some parliamentary seats.

There are ones that he can win, but they are Tory targets as well, and he can do really well if he campaigns in huge Tory leave seats.

Its a huge betrayal of his support base if he doesn't.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:24 pm

AndrewJB wrote:It’s already expensive because it’s run for profit, by companies that don’t reinvest and probably pay little in tax. It can only improve under Labour!

Somethings will & somethings won't, I was quite impressed with certain parts of his speech & he has promised within 6mths to leave with a sensible deal or remain, after 3 years currently we are still none no wiser what's going on & what will happen, it's best to approach things with a open mind, ultimately the people will decide whether he can be trusted to deliver on what he's pledged.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:28 pm

Spiral wrote:It'll be interesting to see how the proposal takes form in the manifesto. The 4-day/32hr week is a political aspiration rather than a direct legislative policy aim, and its ambitions are to be met within 10 years (which is quite presumptuous by assuming Labour will win back-to-back elections). The theory behind it is to legislate 'around' hour-caps - which absolutely are NOT being proposed by Labour, and would be legally unenforceable anyhow - by legislating to increase the collective bargaining power of workers (typical union stuff, nothing particularly controversial, and the very reason Labour exists), taking into account the effect AI and robotics will, and currently manifestly are, reducing the need for human labour hours, all with the aim of the average working week being reduced to 32 hours, rather than outright reducing it legislatively, if that makes sense.

My points still stand.

Massive impact on taxation and pensions.

Or is this the first of Corbyns promises he cannot deliver.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:30 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:Labour policy to move to a 32 hour week.

And what exactly do you think that means?

(spiral has explained it better than whatever right wing rag you get your information from if you need some help)

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:30 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:My points still stand.

Massive impact on taxation and pensions.

Or is this the first of Corbyns promises he cannot deliver.

Speaking of undelivered promises. It's just 150 minutes until Brexit. Are you excited?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:33 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No, i think it's objectively dumb as **** to do something you have already reconsidered as a mistake. Imagine deciding to go skydiving, but just before you jump you notice you've forgotten your parachute, do you stick to your original decision and jump or do you not be a ******* moron?

That's a valid comparison.

Oh, wait. No. It's not.

You make me laugh.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:37 pm

thatdberight wrote:That's a valid comparison.

Oh, wait. No. It's not.

You make me laugh.

It's a perfectly good analogy. It it wasn't then you'd be able to explain why.

Elizabeth · Post by **Elizabeth** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:37 pm

Lancaster giving advice to Farage The smell of fear from the Liberal Democrats

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:40 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:So one of the main promises by Labour is the 32 hour week.

So I have a few questions of you masterminds.

Is my employer going to pay me the same wage for only doing 32 hours instead of 37??

Taking a wild guess my salary has to drop pro rata as it would probably bankrupt the company.

Will I be expected to pay the same amount of tax at my previous higher salary or may be even more tax to cover Labours spending.

What happens to my pension?? A salary reduction would mean a big hit on my pension too, which means I would have to work about 5 years longer.

So suddenly a 32 hour week is sounding like a really **** idea.

Thoughts of great ones.

Johnson’s spending promises are a shade below Labour’s and combined with tax cuts, so square that circle. His spending will include putting more people in prison for longer periods of time, so lots of optimism there. The man positively believes in Britain!

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:40 pm

As Labour are really pushing the narrative that the Conservatives are flogging the NHS to the Americans, especially with Trumps phone call earlier today, it will be interesting to see if the Tories can push back on that or will it be a big problem for them in the lead up to the election.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:41 pm

I wonder if the Brexiteers are upset about the US President interfering in our election already? I remember how upset they were when Obama made a comment about US policy, after Brexiteers lied about it, during the referendum campaign. Who thinks we'll hear the same people get equally upset at their far-right icon from across the pond endorsing Johnson?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:41 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I was going to make that joke about thatdberight but you can bet if I had he, and probably you and a bunch of other snowflakey *****, would have thrown a hissy fit about me wishing him dead.

#peakturtle

If turtle had said something (which he didn't) then I (although he won't be able to point to me having done anything similar) and other unnamed people would have thrown a hissy fit that didn't happen. Which would have made it about him. But in the absence of any of that happening, posting this hypothetical definitely didn't make it about him. Which he hates.

But it's definitely not about making it about him. Ever.

Further #pityme #I'mthevictim #lookatmedon'tlookatme posts to follow from the usual source.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:44 pm

Trump on the radio involving himself in our election. A vast majority of us don’t like him, and only a small percentage do. Corbyn and the other opposition leaders against Farage, Trump, and Johnson.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:45 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Very weird that farage isn't all over this election.

He should be absolutely buzzing to get that leave vote on his side, but he's barely said anything.

To avoid doing a UKIP, he has to win some parliamentary seats.

There are ones that he can win, but they are Tory targets as well, and he can do really well if he campaigns in huge Tory leave seats.

Its a huge betrayal of his support base if he doesn't.

He's happiest shouting from the sidelines though. I doubt he ever imagined the BP would be in a position to have to contest a GE before we left the EU.

He'll be crawling to Boris offering not to put up candidates in constituencies he never really intended to contest anyway. I hope boris tells him to get bent.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:48 pm

thatdberight wrote:#peakturtle

If turtle had said something (which he didn't) then I (although he won't be able to point to me having done anything similar) and other unnamed people would have thrown a hissy fit that didn't happen. Which would have made it about him. But in the absence of any of that happening, posting this hypothetical definitely didn't make it about him. Which he hates.

But it's definitely not about making it about him. Ever.

Further #pityme #I'mthevictim #lookatmedon'tlookatme posts to follow from the usual source.

Godisadeejay made a post about me, i replied. And you're responding like a typical right-wing child.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:51 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Trump on the radio involving himself in our election. A vast majority of us don’t like him, and only a small percentage do. Corbyn and the other opposition leaders against Farage, Trump, and Johnson.

I'm not entirely sure Trump getting involved and supporting Johnson is the worst thing for the rest of us.

Imagine having a such an obviously corrupt white-supremacist president endorsing you, that must be really disheartening.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:54 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Godisadeejay made a post about me, i replied. And you're responding like a typical right-wing child.

Awwww, just a ickle i. Not even a big I. Definitely hates the limelight. That's proof.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:56 pm

thatdberight wrote:Awwww, just a ickle i. Not even a big I. Definitely hates the limelight. That's proof.

Why are you still talking about me? Move on already. You creepy ****.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:56 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's not true. Most people who have an opinion want a second referendum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... referendum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That isn't the point I was making though.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:02 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:My points still stand.

Massive impact on taxation and pensions.

Or is this the first of Corbyns promises he cannot deliver.

For the record I'm not party-loyal, and while it's entirely fair to scrutinise policy you actually do need a policy in front of you to scrutinise, which hasn't arrived yet, hence the first line of my post. However, from what has been spoken about thus far there appears not to be any suggestion whatsoever of reducing take-home wage or indeed pension contributions. This ambition appears to be in the early stages of think-tank policy research. Any and every piece of legislation passed in pursuit of this ambition will undergo scrutiny to ensure things like pension contributions and pensions themselves remain viable. The idea is to rebalance the economy, and more pertinently the employer/employee power balance, which in part entails rebalancing wealth distribution, hence a tax policy, with the aim of giving we plebs more power and agency; and putting not directly in law an hour-cap, but rather legislating to shape labour standards and rights in a way which establishes (or rather, develops) a labour market in which its natural market forces effectively guarantees that grafting for 32 hours a week ensures someone can live a decent, secure enough, if not opulent life. Personally, I'd be content for that guarantee at 40hrs, but here we are. It's an ambitions undertaking but not an impossible one. I imagine progressing from the Victorian workhouse model was seen as similarly ambitious, and probably labelled by the wealthy as being unworkable and impossible at the time, but I'm not a historian.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:03 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Trump on the radio involving himself in our election. A vast majority of us don’t like him, and only a small percentage do. Corbyn and the other opposition leaders against Farage, Trump, and Johnson.

Good news for Corbyn you would think.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:04 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:Somethings will & somethings won't, I was quite impressed with certain parts of his speech & he has promised within 6mths to leave with a sensible deal or remain, after 3 years currently we are still none no wiser what's going on & what will happen, it's best to approach things with a open mind, ultimately the people will decide whether he can be trusted to deliver on what he's pledged.

Yes, but as a Labour MP pointed out last week, Labour policy is to negotiate a "leave" deal that will be very easy to negotiate because it involves staying in the single market and staying in the customs union, and essentially being a technical leave from the EU while having all the practical effects of staying in (except for the right to vote, of course).

And then they will put what they call a "confirmatory referendum" where they ask people to confirm what they meant when they voted to Leave the EU. When we voted Leave, did we really mean Remain, or did we mean near-as-dammit-Remain? They will not risk asking anywhere close to a fair question.

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:06 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:It is because in 2030 the population will be greater than it is today. So not only a larger number of people, but a larger percentage of old people. Expotential.

That's just an increase. It's not exponential.

if something increases (or decreases) exponentially it doubles (or halves) at regular intervals. (y=2x)

So a change of 4% over 14 years cannot be described as exponential.

When you're in a hole stop digging.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:13 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Johnson visited a hospital in Cambridgeshire today.

Judging by the reaction of this NHS worker, I don't think he will be visiting many more.

https://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/sta ... 5342218240" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The thing that is overlooked in this appreciation of this charming and fluent young lady is that she is basing all her "facts" on fiction. How can she possibly see the effect of Tory cuts on the NHS, when (i) in 2010-11 NHS spending £115 billion which is rising to £134 billion in inflation-adjusted terms in 2019-20. That's a much greater rise than the increase in population.

So she may validly criticise the government for not increasing spending enough, or she may validly criticise NHS management for spending it badly, but she can't validly criticise the government for making cuts. (Her comments on being able to see the effect of the "cuts" might also be taken with a pinch of salt because she doesn't look old enough to remember what it was like 10 years ago. The voice of an older nurse at first hand, rather than this woman's voice repeating what she has been told, would be more relevant, perhaps.)

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:13 pm

Cryssys wrote:That's just an increase. It's not exponential.

"Exponential" as you define it is the mathematical definition. You need a dictionary, not a maths text book. All the major dictionaries agree that "exponential" has another, less precise, definition that denotes something much less extreme.

What "expotential" is, I have no idea.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:15 pm

Cryssys wrote:That's just an increase. It's not exponential.

if something increases (or decreases) exponentially it doubles (or halves) at regular intervals. (y=2x)

So a change of 4% over 14 years cannot be described as exponential.

When you're in a hole stop digging.

I wouldn't call it an exponential increase myself, but using strict mathematical definitions to try and debunk a colloquial expression is a bit pointless. Scientific words used in colloquial English shouldn't be taken literally.