Tories - Lying about Labour's tax plans.
Discussion
JustAnotherLogin said:
And NicD
Every govt since 1945 of every party has left office with unemployment higher than when they first took power
Though there is of course a risk that this govt breaks the pattern in a big way with unemployment well down on when they took over and the polls looking very iffy
I am not sure why you addressed this to me but I am interested in your claim.Every govt since 1945 of every party has left office with unemployment higher than when they first took power
Though there is of course a risk that this govt breaks the pattern in a big way with unemployment well down on when they took over and the polls looking very iffy
(Of course, starting from a very low base post war, universal benefits allows the unemployed numbers to grow and governments are usually kicked out when the voters loose confidence in their economic ability)
Using the best stats I can find but accepting they may not all be calculated on the same basis
Do you mean a change of party rather than after each term in office?
Labour was in power 1945- 1951 - unemployment 1.3% in '45 stayed at 1.3% in '51
Then Conservatives to 1964 - unemployment 1.7%
Labour till 1970 - unemployment 2.7%
Then Conservatives to 1974 - unemployment 2.6%
Labour till 1979 - unemployment 5.7%
Then Conservatives to 1997 - unemployment 7.134%
Labour till 2010 - unemployment 7.858%
Now the Coalition - unemployment 5.7%
So not quite true - in '74 and now, the rate is lower.
MarshPhantom said:
don4l said:
MarshPhantom said:
Shock horror, Tory claims that Labour will cost everyone £3k was a "guess", I'd say that's another for a lie, really.
www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
The only thing that I know is that every Labour government, since 1945, has left office with higher unemployment than when they took office.www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
They are clearly the party of the "non-working" man.
Higher unemployment makes everyone worse off - including you.
With regard to the unemployment figures of this government, would I be correct in saying a large percentage of these newly employed people find themselves on zero hours contracts?
Makes the overall figures look good but not actually putting money in pockets a lot of the time.
Not normally a contributor on political threads but genuinely curious to know what people's thoughts are.
Makes the overall figures look good but not actually putting money in pockets a lot of the time.
Not normally a contributor on political threads but genuinely curious to know what people's thoughts are.
RAFsmoggy said:
Do you think distorting peoples names will help normal people here take you seriously or perceive you as childish immature trolls ?
Millibland
BallsUp
What is the point ?
For me Ballsup is out of utter frustration at the imbecile that he is or has a record of delivery and yet and yet he still defends it moronic. Millibland
BallsUp
What is the point ?
Plus its all Punch and Judy politics now as we see week in week out name calling so its just a simple extension from our illustrious leaders.
C12HLL said:
With regard to the unemployment figures of this government, would I be correct in saying a large percentage of these newly employed people find themselves on zero hours contracts?
Makes the overall figures look good but not actually putting money in pockets a lot of the time.
Not normally a contributor on political threads but genuinely curious to know what people's thoughts are.
no. Most new jobs are full time contract. Only a small % are zero hour contracts, And did you know they were around before the coalition? I know labour forget to mention this (its not a new idea, and helps many people. Afterall, labour themselves like them...Makes the overall figures look good but not actually putting money in pockets a lot of the time.
Not normally a contributor on political threads but genuinely curious to know what people's thoughts are.
http://order-order.com/2014/06/17/balls-told-const...
don4l said:
MarshPhantom said:
don4l said:
MarshPhantom said:
Shock horror, Tory claims that Labour will cost everyone £3k was a "guess", I'd say that's another for a lie, really.
www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
The only thing that I know is that every Labour government, since 1945, has left office with higher unemployment than when they took office.www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
They are clearly the party of the "non-working" man.
Higher unemployment makes everyone worse off - including you.
C12HLL said:
With regard to the unemployment figures of this government, would I be correct in saying a large percentage of these newly employed people find themselves on zero hours contracts?
Makes the overall figures look good but not actually putting money in pockets a lot of the time.
Not normally a contributor on political threads but genuinely curious to know what people's thoughts are.
my wife and I are both on zero hours contracts. The majorty of people on zero hours contracts are happy and don't want more hours. Any highly paid IT or O&G contractors will be on zero hours contracts.Makes the overall figures look good but not actually putting money in pockets a lot of the time.
Not normally a contributor on political threads but genuinely curious to know what people's thoughts are.
Labour drone on about zero hours contracts because they make a good sound bite.
Edited by 98elise on Tuesday 31st March 07:37
don4l said:
MarshPhantom said:
don4l said:
MarshPhantom said:
Shock horror, Tory claims that Labour will cost everyone £3k was a "guess", I'd say that's another for a lie, really.
www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
The only thing that I know is that every Labour government, since 1945, has left office with higher unemployment than when they took office.www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
They are clearly the party of the "non-working" man.
Higher unemployment makes everyone worse off - including you.
They're all liars, that's why they are there.
To be fair, it wasn't a bad guess. Labour have committed to the deficit reduction (though they may have lied). They have committed to the 50% of that via tax increases (though they may have lied). Targeting only working households as the divide by number is a) sensible and b) had been used by Labour before to make scary numbers. The cumulative year on year for four years is simple Westminster mathematics (i.e. lies that are so common we ignore them).
Dreadful way of going about it, but the alternative is for everyone to be forced to put manifesto and policy commitments in black and white and this lot couldn't organise this any more than they could organise a party in a London Bed and Breakfast.
To be fair, it wasn't a bad guess. Labour have committed to the deficit reduction (though they may have lied). They have committed to the 50% of that via tax increases (though they may have lied). Targeting only working households as the divide by number is a) sensible and b) had been used by Labour before to make scary numbers. The cumulative year on year for four years is simple Westminster mathematics (i.e. lies that are so common we ignore them).
Dreadful way of going about it, but the alternative is for everyone to be forced to put manifesto and policy commitments in black and white and this lot couldn't organise this any more than they could organise a party in a London Bed and Breakfast.
I don't recall Labour getting the same level of analysis or criticism in the media over their "£1600 worse off" soundbite which is obviously as much of a nonsense as the £3000 figure.
And don't get me started on "everyday working people". Every time I hear this peddled by a Labour politician I scream at the interviewer to have them define what it means. They don't and I imagine there are a lot of people on this forum who work every day and wouldn't dream of voting Labour.
And don't get me started on "everyday working people". Every time I hear this peddled by a Labour politician I scream at the interviewer to have them define what it means. They don't and I imagine there are a lot of people on this forum who work every day and wouldn't dream of voting Labour.
Edited by alxce on Tuesday 31st March 09:43
ellroy said:
Possibly that their very name is now in fact a lie? Their core vote does not labour that's for bloody sure.
Indeed.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flSxj7zfWvY
randlemarcus said:
They're all liars, that's why they are there.
To be fair, it wasn't a bad guess. Labour have committed to the deficit reduction (though they may have lied). They have committed to the 50% of that via tax increases (though they may have lied). Targeting only working households as the divide by number is a) sensible and b) had been used by Labour before to make scary numbers. The cumulative year on year for four years is simple Westminster mathematics (i.e. lies that are so common we ignore them).
Dreadful way of going about it, but the alternative is for everyone to be forced to put manifesto and policy commitments in black and white and this lot couldn't organise this any more than they could organise a party in a London Bed and Breakfast.
It is a bit more complicated than that.To be fair, it wasn't a bad guess. Labour have committed to the deficit reduction (though they may have lied). They have committed to the 50% of that via tax increases (though they may have lied). Targeting only working households as the divide by number is a) sensible and b) had been used by Labour before to make scary numbers. The cumulative year on year for four years is simple Westminster mathematics (i.e. lies that are so common we ignore them).
Dreadful way of going about it, but the alternative is for everyone to be forced to put manifesto and policy commitments in black and white and this lot couldn't organise this any more than they could organise a party in a London Bed and Breakfast.
Labour say that they are going to increase spending/cancel planned spending cuts and balance the budget.
The Tories say that if Labour are not going to increase borrowing and are going to increase spending then they have no other option than to increase taxes.
However, Labour don't have any significant plans to increase taxes (other than the already announced 50% additional rate income tax etc).
The real answer is that Labour are going to change the definition of "balanced". Currently a balanced budget is one where the income equals the expenditure. Labour are planning to exclude some expenditure (namely investment) from the calculation. This change in definition "creates" £25 billion of additional money for Labour to spend.
Obviously people who understand finance/economics will spot this con but few (if any) of them vote Labour anyway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25885606
Edited by ralphrj on Tuesday 31st March 09:46
Labour have now said that they are looking to raise taxes on banding from £50k - £80k in £10k increments... They have officially said that anyone on £80k or above is 'rich'.
So a family with a stay at home parent on a household income of £80k is going to get screwed over compared to a family were both parents work and are on £40k.
How lovely that Labour are looking to do that, sometimes I wonder why I go to work at all.
So a family with a stay at home parent on a household income of £80k is going to get screwed over compared to a family were both parents work and are on £40k.
How lovely that Labour are looking to do that, sometimes I wonder why I go to work at all.
MarshPhantom said:
don4l said:
MarshPhantom said:
Shock horror, Tory claims that Labour will cost everyone £3k was a "guess", I'd say that's another for a lie, really.
www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
The only thing that I know is that every Labour government, since 1945, has left office with higher unemployment than when they took office.www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/30/elec...
They are clearly the party of the "non-working" man.
But they aren't going to raise taxes, or at least won't admit they are.
So where exactly will the money come from to simultaneously reduce the deficit AND increase spending?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff