This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
-
Lowbankclaret
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Post
by Lowbankclaret » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:41 pm
randomclaret2 wrote:Good to see Labour insisting only those earning over £80,000 will pay more tax. An MP's salary is £79,468.
Unless your parents have saved all their lives and now they have died they are going to tax the hell out of what they want to leave to the kids.
Bet Corbyn the multi millionaire has his fax affairs in order so he does not pay it.
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:14 pm
Just catching up with the latest following a long day. I didn't think I would be surprised by Labour's commitments to spend money. But what they have announced is truly eye watering to the extent the manisfesto surely wouldnt be deliverable without causing serious damage to the economy, businesses and in turn workers. I've just heard the highly respected IFS saying the spending plans simply aren't credible.
-
Steve-Harpers-perm
- Posts: 5799
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1884 times
- Has Liked: 841 times
Post
by Steve-Harpers-perm » Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:25 pm
taio wrote:Just catching up with the latest following a long day. I didn't think I would be surprised by Labour's commitments to spend money. But what they have announced is truly eye watering to the extent the manisfesto surely wouldnt be deliverable without causing serious damage to the economy, businesses and in turn workers. I've just heard the highly respected IFS saying the spending plans simply aren't credible.
Be interesting to compare it to the Conservative fully costed manifesto.
-
martin_p
- Posts: 10381
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
- Been Liked: 3768 times
- Has Liked: 696 times
Post
by martin_p » Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:28 pm
Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Be interesting to compare it to the Conservative fully costed manifesto.
Judging by the campaign so far the Tory manifesto will consist of nothing more than an ‘oven ready’ Brexit and a picture of Jeremy Corbyn with devil’s horns.
This user liked this post: timshorts
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:34 pm
Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Be interesting to compare it to the Conservative fully costed manifesto.
It will be interesting to compare their manifestos. But I can tell you now the Tories' spending commitments won't be anywhere near Labour's which is my overriding concern.
-
dsr
- Posts: 15249
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
- Been Liked: 4579 times
- Has Liked: 2271 times
Post
by dsr » Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:51 pm
My (admittedly biased) view is that Labour have overdone the giveaways. Too many people will believe (correctly IMO) that what they want to do, can't be done.
-
bfcjg
- Posts: 13374
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:17 pm
- Been Liked: 5092 times
- Has Liked: 6916 times
Post
by bfcjg » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:00 pm
CombatClaret wrote:Nash... foam... foreigners...
Hmm when their plans are questioned the left resort to insults and the race card. The question again why are they building 100000 thousand houses a year to solve the housing crisis but encouraging uncontrolled immigration. It is a fair question surely ?
-
Lancasterclaret
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Post
by Lancasterclaret » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:07 pm
dsr wrote:My (admittedly biased) view is that Labour have overdone the giveaways. Too many people will believe (correctly IMO) that what they want to do, can't be done.
Rather worryingly, I find myself in agreement with Dsr on this.
Labours 2017 manifesto was a great one, and made economic sense.
This is just too much to be believable.
Which means that the Conservative one just has to be better than their 2017 effort (not hard) to quickly switch the conversation to Labour and their unrealistic plans.
Lib Dem is far more realistic btw
-
Devils_Advocate
- Posts: 12382
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5213 times
- Has Liked: 922 times
Post
by Devils_Advocate » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:13 pm
Lancasterclaret wrote:Rather worryingly, I find myself in agreement with Dsr on this.
Labours 2017 manifesto was a great one, and made economic sense.
This is just too much to be believable.
Which means that the Conservative one just has to be better than their 2017 effort (not hard) to quickly switch the conversation to Labour and their unrealistic plans.
Lib Dem is far more realistic btw
I havent had chance to look at it closely enough to form a proper view but I wish DSR could post like this a bit more often. I still might not agree with on most things but I could respect his views and have a more honest discussion
This user liked this post: Lancasterclaret
-
martin_p
- Posts: 10381
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
- Been Liked: 3768 times
- Has Liked: 696 times
Post
by martin_p » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:15 pm
Lancasterclaret wrote:Rather worryingly, I find myself in agreement with Dsr on this.
Labours 2017 manifesto was a great one, and made economic sense.
This is just too much to be believable.
Which means that the Conservative one just has to be better than their 2017 effort (not hard) to quickly switch the conversation to Labour and their unrealistic plans.
Lib Dem is far more realistic btw
If Labour just deliver half what’s in their manifesto it’ll do more for the country than a Tory one.
-
Lancasterclaret
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Post
by Lancasterclaret » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:18 pm
martin_p wrote:If Labour just deliver half what’s in their manifesto it’ll do more for the country than a Tory one.
Of course, but why don't just have one like 2017 then?
I can't see how this is going to avoid getting nailed by the finances, and that historically is bad news for Labour.
-
AndrewJB
- Posts: 3808
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1159 times
- Has Liked: 754 times
Post
by AndrewJB » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:20 pm
bfcjg wrote:Labour plan to build 100,000 council homes a year which is brilliant however they also want to have free movement of people and more migration into the UK and make it easier for refugees. Will they be living in tents ? Labour will house them first so the housing problem will never be resolved.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labou ... ax-1318962" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Oh look. Free movement is something they left out of their manifesto. Now the council houses can actually be for British people.
How does it compare to the Tory commitment on building new houses? Let's not forget they haven't built a single one of the 100K they promised to build by 2021 (or whenever it was).
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:21 pm
martin_p wrote:If Labour just deliver half what’s in their manifesto it’ll do more for the country than a Tory one.
Like delivering £83,000,000,000 a year in additional tax?
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:24 pm
AndrewJB wrote:https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labou ... ax-1318962 - Oh look. Free movement is something they left out of their manifesto. Now the council houses can actually be for British people.
How does it compare to the Tory commitment on building new houses? Let's not forget they haven't built a single one of the 100K they promised to build by 2021 (or whenever it was).
57,485 affordable homes were delivered in 18/19.
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4265 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:28 pm
taio wrote:57,485 affordable homes were delivered in 18/19.
“Delivered”? Did they get them from Amazon?
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:32 pm
Greenmile wrote:“Delivered”? Did they get them from Amazon?
It has a broader meaning than just posting something. The term delivery is often used in construction and housing.
-
wickdkewlclaret
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:12 pm
- Been Liked: 141 times
- Has Liked: 81 times
Post
by wickdkewlclaret » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:33 pm
- 8DF9448B-C08D-4FC9-8085-F10CF2E01606.jpeg (118.23 KiB) Viewed 1136 times
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4265 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:34 pm
taio wrote:It has a broader meaning than just posting something. The term delivery is often used in construction and housing.
Yes, it was sort of a joke.
“Delivered” did feel like a bit of a weasel word in your post though. Did they actually build these houses? Genuine question - I have no idea.
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:36 pm
Greenmile wrote:Yes, it was a joke.
“Delivered” did feel like a bit of a weasel word in your post though. Did they actually build these houses? Genuine question - I have no idea.
Here's a headline from Inside Housing which I subscribe to:
"Affordable housing delivery up 22% from previous year in England, government figures reveal"
Pedantry aside, yes, number of affordable homes completed.
-
wickdkewlclaret
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:12 pm
- Been Liked: 141 times
- Has Liked: 81 times
Post
by wickdkewlclaret » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:38 pm
Greenmile wrote:Yes, it was sort of a joke.
“Delivered” did feel like a bit of a weasel word in your post though. Did they actually build these houses? Genuine question - I have no idea.
Everything you need to know about Tories and housing is here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rTmSfzeHdEo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Andrew Neil v Liz Truss on Politics Live today.
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4265 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:38 pm
taio wrote:Here's a headline from Inside Housing which I subscribe to:
"Affordable housing delivery up 22% from previous year in England, government figures reveal"
Pedantry aside, yes, number of affordable homes completed.
Here’s an article that says they haven’t built any (which was the original statement you disputed).
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... -2015-tory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Looks like “delivered” was a weasel word after all.
Edit - as is “completed” it seems.
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:41 pm
Greenmile wrote:Here’s an article that says they haven’t built any (which was the original statement you disputed).
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... -2015-tory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Looks like “delivered” was a weasel word after all.
Edit - as is “completed” it seems.
That article is specifically about starter homes isnt it?
-
CombatClaret
- Posts: 4388
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1826 times
- Has Liked: 930 times
Post
by CombatClaret » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:44 pm
bfcjg wrote:Hmm when their plans are questioned the left resort to insults and the race card. The question again why are they building 100000 thousand houses a year to solve the housing crisis but encouraging uncontrolled immigration. It is a fair question surely ?
If you want to believe Labour is proposing 'uncontrolled' immigration there's not much point in having a sensible discussion.
These 3 users liked this post: wickdkewlclaret Greenmile longsidepies
-
AndrewJB
- Posts: 3808
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1159 times
- Has Liked: 754 times
Post
by AndrewJB » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:45 pm
taio wrote:Like delivering £83,000,000,000 a year in additional tax?
Yes, it's called redistribution. That money injected into the economy in projects that benefit everyone, rather than squirreled away in a Cayman's bank, or spent on helicopters and yachts. The thing is the very rich will also benefit from this, because more industry, and more jobs means more consumers (and increased tax receipts) to buy products from businesses owned by the very rich.
Unlike Tory austerity, no rich people will suffer in this. Not a single one of them will be forced to move away from their family, or choose between heating their home and feeding their children. The economy works best when it works for everyone, rather than just the top five percent.
This user liked this post: wickdkewlclaret
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4265 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:45 pm
taio wrote:That article is specifically about starter homes isnt it?
Yes. So was the Tory manifesto pledge we’re talking about, according to the first line of the article, at least.
“The Tories' 2015 manifesto committed the party to building 200,000 'Starter Homes', to be sold at a 20% discount and exclusively available to first-time buyers under the age of 40.”
-
Steve-Harpers-perm
- Posts: 5799
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1884 times
- Has Liked: 841 times
Post
by Steve-Harpers-perm » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:47 pm
wickdkewlclaret wrote:Everything you need to know about Tories and housing is here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rTmSfzeHdEo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Andrew Neil v Liz Truss on Politics Live today.
Liz Truss the female equivalent to Alan Partridge.
This user liked this post: Lancasterclaret
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:48 pm
Greenmile wrote:Yes. So was the Tory manifesto pledge we’re talking about, according to the first line of the article, at least.
“The Tories' 2015 manifesto committed the party to building 200,000 'Starter Homes', to be sold at a 20% discount and exclusively available to first-time buyers under the age of 40.”
Starter homes wasnt mentioned in the post I responded to. It was about supply in the market and I think additional affordable homes built is really important. They are being built all the time under section 106 conditions.
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:51 pm
AndrewJB wrote:Yes, it's called redistribution. That money injected into the economy in projects that benefit everyone, rather than squirreled away in a Cayman's bank, or spent on helicopters and yachts. The thing is the very rich will also benefit from this, because more industry, and more jobs means more consumers (and increased tax receipts) to buy products from businesses owned by the very rich.
Unlike Tory austerity, no rich people will suffer in this. Not a single one of them will be forced to move away from their family, or choose between heating their home and feeding their children. The economy works best when it works for everyone, rather than just the top five percent.
Experts are saying they would fail to deliver anything like £83 billion in additional tax as proposed, yet their spending plans are predicated on this additional revenue.
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4265 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:53 pm
taio wrote:Starter homes wasnt mentioned in the post I responded to. It was about supply in the market and I think additional affordable homes built is really important. They are being built all the time under section 106 conditions.
Yes, but “the Tory commitment on building new houses” was mentioned, and it appears that commitment related to starter homes.
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:57 pm
Greenmile wrote:Yes, but “the Tory commitment on building new houses” was mentioned, and it appears that commitment related to starter homes.
The 2017 manifesto included a commitment to provide affordable homes. Hence my reference to 57k additional supply of affordable homes in 18/19.
-
AndrewJB
- Posts: 3808
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1159 times
- Has Liked: 754 times
Post
by AndrewJB » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:59 pm
taio wrote:57,485 affordable homes were delivered in 18/19.
I was referring to this manifesto promise from 2015:
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mor ... chdog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Actually 200K - and again if you read the article, none of them have been built.
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4265 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:00 pm
taio wrote:The 2017 manifesto included a commitment to provide affordable homes. Hence my reference to 57k additional supply of affordable homes in 18/19.
...and we’re back to the weasel words. “Provide” and “supply” seem like they could mean “build” in this context, but they don’t , do they?
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:02 pm
You were referring specifically to starter homes which you didnt say originally. This is just one form of housing offer. Affordable homes are crucial.
This user liked this post: KateR
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:04 pm
Greenmile wrote:...and we’re back to the weasel words. “Provide” and “supply” seem like they could mean “build” in this context, but they don’t , do they?
I've no idea why you are getting hung up on words like supply, deliver and provide. They are basic words. It very often includes new builds and sometimes conversations which is a good thing too. Housing supply is absolutely the most appropriate word.
-
Bfcboyo
- Posts: 1965
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:30 pm
- Been Liked: 441 times
- Has Liked: 355 times
Post
by Bfcboyo » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:08 pm
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... s-49798197" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I've spoken to a number of labour voters making the unbelievable jump to Tory. Could be a big win and I am jumping ship to the blues also.
Corbyn will hopefully go following this election and labour can be back to normality and hopefully back to labour for me.
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4265 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:09 pm
taio wrote:I've no idea why you are getting hung up on words like supply, deliver and provide. They are basic words. It very often includes new builds and sometimes conversations which is a good thing too. Housing supply is absolutely the most appropriate word.
I’m getting “hung up” on lies and deception. First the Tories in failing dismally to even try to keep a manifesto commitment to
build (not “supply”, “deliver” or “provide”) 200k houses, and then you using ambiguous language to try to persuade people that they didn’t.
-
AndrewJB
- Posts: 3808
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1159 times
- Has Liked: 754 times
Post
by AndrewJB » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:12 pm
taio wrote:Experts are saying they would fail to deliver anything like £83 billion in additional tax as proposed, yet their spending plans are predicated on this additional revenue.
Are these the same experts who said there would be massive job losses and a recession if the country voted for brexit back in 2016? Do you think "experts" who work for think tanks funded by very rich people would find every way possible to question the figure?
Let's face it, there will be some contention when it comes to large amounts of money like that, but I'm quite sure there will be "plan b's" and fall back positions within the implementation of any plan like that should things turn out to be wrong, because there are more variables than simply "is the money there and taxable (I would argue yes)?
In the end, this manifesto can only be compared to that of the Tories, so let's see if they can come up with a better proposition for the people of the UK.
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:13 pm
Greenmile wrote:I’m getting “hung up” on lies and deception. First the Tories in failing dismally to even try to keep a manifesto commitment, and then you using ambiguous language to try to persuade people that they didn’t.
I've done no such thing. The quote I responded to referred to a conservative manifesto commitment. It said nothing about starter homes. The tories committed in their manifesto to increase supply of affordable housing. Supply is the most relevant word in this context. If you look at any local authority housing needs assessment they will focus on supply. RSLs will focus on supply in their development plans. How the **** am I trying to persuade people they didnt keep their commitment when starter homes wasnt even mentioned?
-
Lowbankclaret
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Post
by Lowbankclaret » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:14 pm
martin_p wrote:If Labour just deliver half what’s in their manifesto it’ll do more for the country than a Tory one.
No it will remove shops from our high streets.
Drive high earners out of the country.
And bankrupt the country.
Great plan by a commie idiot and his commie mates.
These 2 users liked this post: KateR Bfcboyo
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4265 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:16 pm
taio wrote:I've done no such thing. The quote I responded to referred to a conservative manifesto commitment. It said nothing about starter homes. The tories committed in their manifesto to increase supply of affordable housing. Supply is the most relevant word in this context. If you look at any local authority housing needs assessment they will focus on supply. RSLs will focus on supply in their development plans. How the **** am I trying to persuade people they didnt keep their commitment when starter homes wasnt even mentioned?
The quote you responded to said “build”. The Tory manifesto said “build”. “Build” is the relevant word in this context. By banging on about “supply”, you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters.
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:16 pm
AndrewJB wrote:Are these the same experts who said there would be massive job losses and a recession if the country voted for brexit back in 2016? Do you think "experts" who work for think tanks funded by very rich people would find every way possible to question the figure?
Let's face it, there will be some contention when it comes to large amounts of money like that, but I'm quite sure there will be "plan b's" and fall back positions within the implementation of any plan like that should things turn out to be wrong, because there are more variables than simply "is the money there and taxable (I would argue yes)?
In the end, this manifesto can only be compared to that of the Tories, so let's see if they can come up with a better proposition for the people of the UK.
No they are tax experts.
We'll only know if the Tories come up with a better proposition on 13 December when we know who won most seats.
-
Lowbankclaret
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Post
by Lowbankclaret » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:16 pm
AndrewJB wrote:https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labou ... ax-1318962 - Oh look. Free movement is something they left out of their manifesto. Now the council houses can actually be for British people.
How does it compare to the Tory commitment on building new houses? Let's not forget they haven't built a single one of the 100K they promised to build by 2021 (or whenever it was).
No it’s says if you can get here, we will let all family members in, remove any need for them to financially support themselves.
State picks up the bill.
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:20 pm
Greenmile wrote:The quote you responded to said “build”. The Tory manifesto said “build”. “Build” is the relevant word in this context. By banging on about “supply”, you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters.
They have built loads of new affordable homes. Why are you bothered about new build? Would you not see say 100 new affordable apartments converted from a disused mill a positive thing, increasing the supply of affordable housing in the area? How can you possibly argue that increasing "supply" is not important or an appropriate word?
-
martin_p
- Posts: 10381
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
- Been Liked: 3768 times
- Has Liked: 696 times
Post
by martin_p » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:22 pm
taio wrote:Experts are saying they would fail to deliver anything like £83 billion in additional tax as proposed, yet their spending plans are predicated on this additional revenue.
This is a real red letter day for experts. They must be delighted that they’re suddenly back in vogue with a whole section of the population.
These 2 users liked this post: CombatClaret Greenmile
-
CombatClaret
- Posts: 4388
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1826 times
- Has Liked: 930 times
Post
by CombatClaret » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:23 pm
Lowbankclaret wrote:No it will remove shops from our high streets.
There are shops left on the high street?
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4265 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:24 pm
taio wrote:They have built loads of new affordable homes. Why are you bothered about new build? Would you not see say 100 new affordable apartments converted from a disused mill a positive thing, increasing the supply of affordable housing in the area? How can you possibly argue that increasing "supply" is not important or an appropriate word?
Again, I’m not bothered about the homes themselves (I only found out about the commitment today). I’m bothered about the Tories not even trying to keep their promises, and you trying to fool folk into thinking they did.
-
taio
- Posts: 11643
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
- Been Liked: 3249 times
- Has Liked: 346 times
Post
by taio » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:26 pm
martin_p wrote:This is a real red letter day for experts. They must be delighted that they’re suddenly back in vogue with a whole section of the population.
And on the flip side a whole section of population relying on experts over the last three and a half years are now less inclined to believe what experts are now saying because the findings don't fit with their beliefs.
-
Lowbankclaret
- Posts: 6576
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Post
by Lowbankclaret » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:26 pm
taio wrote:Like delivering £83,000,000,000 a year in additional tax?
And all from the top 5% of wage earners.
Just let’s take that in.
The top 5% of the uk are going to pay 83 billion more in tax a year.
Just let that sink in.