Discussion
sidicks said:
Dazed and Confused said:
You need to get over it whether it's true or not. The Tories recent failure was over general anger regarding brexit.
What absolute nonsense! The Tories increased their share of the vote and the UKIP vote was split with Labour who (at the time) were providing basically the same message as far as Brexit was concerned.The only main party proposing a different Brexit outcome were the Lib Dems, who made marginal gains.
So the evidence does not align with your claims.
Labour's masterstroke was not being anti-brexit, just not being wanting it any cost as the Tories seem happy with.
Dazed and Confused said:
sidicks said:
Dazed and Confused said:
You need to get over it whether it's true or not. The Tories recent failure was over general anger regarding brexit.
What absolute nonsense! The Tories increased their share of the vote and the UKIP vote was split with Labour who (at the time) were providing basically the same message as far as Brexit was concerned.The only main party proposing a different Brexit outcome were the Lib Dems, who made marginal gains.
So the evidence does not align with your claims.
Labour's masterstroke was not being anti-brexit, just not being wanting it any cost as the Tories seem happy with.
Strange that.
Dazed and Confused said:
Never forget only around 30% of the UK actually voted Leave and a lot of Remain voters stayed at home, having been lied to about their winning by a mile position in the polls.
Strange that.
Never forget a lot of Leave voters stayed at home, having been lied to about the consequences of voting Leave.Strange that.
Dazed and Confused said:
Never forget only around 30% of the UK actually voted Leave
What percentage voted remain? I put it to you that it was less than 30%Dazed and Confused said:
and a lot of Remain voters stayed at home
A lot of Leave voters too- I read their position as "happy to go with the result"Dazed and Confused said:
having been lied to about their winning by a mile position in the polls.
Who lied to them?Dazed and Confused said:
Never forget only around 30% of the UK actually voted Leave and a lot of Remain voters stayed at home, having been lied to about their winning by a mile position in the polls.
Strange that.
Are your blinkers new or have you had them a long time?Strange that.
The evidence does not support your claims. Again.
Dazed and Confused said:
You need to get over it whether it's true or not. The Tories recent failure was over general anger regarding brexit.
Were they less angry at the time of the local elections? Labour got a drubbing and lost nearly 400 seats!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39795422
Everyone hated Corbyn including his own MP's. All predictions were for not just a Tory win, but a landslide at the GE. Corbyn then promised to spend spend spend.... all to be paid for by the rich, and May was completely useless.
Murph7355 said:
Why did the LibDems do so poorly if that's the case?
The LibDems actually increased their number of seats by 25%. Their vote share went down from 7.9% to 7.8%, so minuscule. You ask why they did so poorly. There is a general consensus that the UKIP vote, they were the massive losers in the election, was unlikely to go to the sole anti-brexit party. Labour got a 10% increase and the tories just 4%.
So their vote stayed up more or less. The percentage had dropped by 2/3rds from where it was in 2015 but that had nothing to do with brexit. All commentators I've read have suggested that the reason, or major reason, for this was the betrayal of their voters over university fees. Going back of a promise, eh? Who would have thought the electorate bother with that?
Derek Smith said:
The LibDems actually increased their number of seats by 25%. Their vote share went down from 7.9% to 7.8%, so minuscule.
You ask why they did so poorly. There is a general consensus that the UKIP vote, they were the massive losers in the election, was unlikely to go to the sole anti-brexit party. Labour got a 10% increase and the tories just 4%.
So their vote stayed up more or less. The percentage had dropped by 2/3rds from where it was in 2015 but that had nothing to do with brexit. All commentators I've read have suggested that the reason, or major reason, for this was the betrayal of their voters over university fees. Going back of a promise, eh? Who would have thought the electorate bother with that?
You've had many careers Derek, but I'd advise against turd polishing You ask why they did so poorly. There is a general consensus that the UKIP vote, they were the massive losers in the election, was unlikely to go to the sole anti-brexit party. Labour got a 10% increase and the tories just 4%.
So their vote stayed up more or less. The percentage had dropped by 2/3rds from where it was in 2015 but that had nothing to do with brexit. All commentators I've read have suggested that the reason, or major reason, for this was the betrayal of their voters over university fees. Going back of a promise, eh? Who would have thought the electorate bother with that?
Their share of the vote went down. That this resulted in more seats is a damning indictment on our boundaries/system.
They bet the house on Remain voters turning their way. Not on UKIP voters going to them/staying put! Quite evidently (and amusingly) that did not happen. It doesn't matter that the drop was small (though even a 0.1% drop is still millions of people!). It didn't even stay level, let alone go up. And if people felt strongly enough about Remaining, surely it would have gone up a bit?
I have some sympathy with the being lied to angle. Which makes it all the more confusing why the youth vote went to Labour! Their lying on the same topic was even thinner!
May being in place to fight the next election is about as likely as me platting fog, Conservative head office wont contemplate that after the shambles of the 2017 campaign.
All you are seeing right now is a front being put on, once the EU exit is sorted she will resign, I would expect David Davies will then be the main candidate, but as we know, often the most obvious person rarely gets the leadership role.
All you are seeing right now is a front being put on, once the EU exit is sorted she will resign, I would expect David Davies will then be the main candidate, but as we know, often the most obvious person rarely gets the leadership role.
Murph7355 said:
You've had many careers Derek, but I'd advise against turd polishing
Their share of the vote went down. That this resulted in more seats is a damning indictment on our boundaries/system.
They bet the house on Remain voters turning their way. Not on UKIP voters going to them/staying put! Quite evidently (and amusingly) that did not happen. It doesn't matter that the drop was small (though even a 0.1% drop is still millions of people!). It didn't even stay level, let alone go up. And if people felt strongly enough about Remaining, surely it would have gone up a bit?
I have some sympathy with the being lied to angle. Which makes it all the more confusing why the youth vote went to Labour! Their lying on the same topic was even thinner!
The LibDems have always been a bit canny when chasing seats. They tend to concentrate on those they think they stand a chance at. Regardless of the whys, they got more seats. Their share of the vote went down. That this resulted in more seats is a damning indictment on our boundaries/system.
They bet the house on Remain voters turning their way. Not on UKIP voters going to them/staying put! Quite evidently (and amusingly) that did not happen. It doesn't matter that the drop was small (though even a 0.1% drop is still millions of people!). It didn't even stay level, let alone go up. And if people felt strongly enough about Remaining, surely it would have gone up a bit?
I have some sympathy with the being lied to angle. Which makes it all the more confusing why the youth vote went to Labour! Their lying on the same topic was even thinner!
I don't think their vote went down by millions. I haven't looked it up, and stand to be corrected, but I think their vote was about 2.5m in 2015.
The lying, by all parties on all sides, is one thing, but the LibDems chased the youth vote in 2010 and then abandoned it. That was both stupid and self destructive.
I'm not sure what you mean by labour lying on the same topic. To my memory, the promise was to cut tuition fees and there was some waffle about it not being done immediately. My feeling is that after the LD disaster they would have come through on that. Remember that the imposition of fees by Cameron brought in no money. Indeed, the suggestion is that in the long term it will cost. Reducing levels to the pre Cameron days would have been more or more or less self funding, but the remaining third would cost.
The LDs were within a few % of labour in the 2010 election. Indeed, labour could have got a majority if they had entered into a coalition with them. Politics and what ifs, eh? If the other Milliband had been elected, labour would have probably gained a majority in 2017, and maybe even 2015.
jsf said:
May being in place to fight the next election is about as likely as me platting fog, Conservative head office wont contemplate that after the shambles of the 2017 campaign.
All you are seeing right now is a front being put on, once the EU exit is sorted she will resign, I would expect David Davies will then be the main candidate, but as we know, often the most obvious person rarely gets the leadership role.
I suppose that depends on when the next election is? All you are seeing right now is a front being put on, once the EU exit is sorted she will resign, I would expect David Davies will then be the main candidate, but as we know, often the most obvious person rarely gets the leadership role.
The conservatives can’t do much meaningful now, without a majority, so it could easily be before March 2019.
Derek Smith said:
The LibDems have always been a bit canny when chasing seats. They tend to concentrate on those they think they stand a chance at. Regardless of the whys, they got more seats.
I don't think their vote went down by millions. I haven't looked it up, and stand to be corrected, but I think their vote was about 2.5m in 2015.
The Lib Dems had over 6.8m votes in 2010, this fell to 2.4m in 2015 and then fell further still in 2017 (albeit by only 30k).I don't think their vote went down by millions. I haven't looked it up, and stand to be corrected, but I think their vote was about 2.5m in 2015.
Derek Smith said:
The lying, by all parties on all sides, is one thing, but the LibDems chased the youth vote in 2010 and then abandoned it. That was both stupid and self destructive.
I'm not sure what you mean by labour lying on the same topic. To my memory, the promise was to cut tuition fees and there was some waffle about it not being done immediately.
Your memory fails you. An explicit commitment to remove fees (immediately, from memory) in the manifesto and then in addition, the thinly-veiled bribe regarding existing debt alluded to in the pre election campaigning.I'm not sure what you mean by labour lying on the same topic. To my memory, the promise was to cut tuition fees and there was some waffle about it not being done immediately.
Derek Smith said:
My feeling is that after the LD disaster they would have come through on that. Remember that the imposition of fees by Cameron brought in no money. Indeed, the suggestion is that in the long term it will cost.
Who has made this suggestion and on what basis?Derek Smith said:
Reducing levels to the pre Cameron days would have been more or more or less self funding, but the remaining third would cost.
Eh?Derek Smith said:
The LDs were within a few % of labour in the 2010 election. Indeed, labour could have got a majority if they had entered into a coalition with them. Politics and what ifs, eh? If the other Milliband had been elected, labour would have probably gained a majority in 2017, and maybe even 2015.
23% v 29% with the Tories on 36.1%sidicks said:
Derek Smith said:
The LibDems have always been a bit canny when chasing seats. They tend to concentrate on those they think they stand a chance at. Regardless of the whys, they got more seats.
I don't think their vote went down by millions. I haven't looked it up, and stand to be corrected, but I think their vote was about 2.5m in 2015.
The Lib Dems had over 6.8m votes in 2010, this fell to 2.4m in 2015 and then fell further still in 2017 (albeit by only 30k).I don't think their vote went down by millions. I haven't looked it up, and stand to be corrected, but I think their vote was about 2.5m in 2015.
Derek Smith said:
The lying, by all parties on all sides, is one thing, but the LibDems chased the youth vote in 2010 and then abandoned it. That was both stupid and self destructive.
I'm not sure what you mean by labour lying on the same topic. To my memory, the promise was to cut tuition fees and there was some waffle about it not being done immediately.
Your memory fails you. An explicit commitment to remove fees (immediately, from memory) in the manifesto and then in addition, the thinly-veiled bribe regarding existing debt alluded to in the pre election campaigning.I'm not sure what you mean by labour lying on the same topic. To my memory, the promise was to cut tuition fees and there was some waffle about it not being done immediately.
Derek Smith said:
My feeling is that after the LD disaster they would have come through on that. Remember that the imposition of fees by Cameron brought in no money. Indeed, the suggestion is that in the long term it will cost.
Who has made this suggestion and on what basis?Derek Smith said:
Reducing levels to the pre Cameron days would have been more or more or less self funding, but the remaining third would cost.
Eh?Derek Smith said:
The LDs were within a few % of labour in the 2010 election. Indeed, labour could have got a majority if they had entered into a coalition with them. Politics and what ifs, eh? If the other Milliband had been elected, labour would have probably gained a majority in 2017, and maybe even 2015.
23% v 29% with the Tories on 36.1%Just to clear up the points where you aren't agreeing: I've just looked it up and Corbyn said that they would not be able cut the fees immediately and some students might have to pay but would be reimbursed. So not immediately.
Further, Corbyn did not say, suggest or promise to reimburse those who have already paid. An internet search revealed that this has been covered on these very forums, and an actual quote from the man himself. Have a Google.
There have been a number of financial reports which supported that the increase in fees (from those imposed by labour) would bring in no money, due in part to the number of graduates who would not be able to repay in time. Again, it is all on the internet and available to anyone who is intelligent enough to use Google.
So you looked up and discovered that the LDs were just a few % below labour in 2010. You should have accepted what I posted. It would have given you more time to look up the costs of the increase in uni fees. It is fairly basic maths and some posters on here predicted that it would not make money.
Derek Smith said:
sidicks said:
...in addition, the thinly-veiled bribe regarding existing debt alluded to in the pre election campaigning.
Further, Corbyn did not say, suggest or promise to reimburse those who have already paid. An internet search revealed that this has been covered on these very forums, and an actual quote from the man himself. Have a Google.He said he'd "deal" with existing debt which to me does seem nearer a thinly-veiled bribe alluded to than not suggesting anything.
Derek Smith said:
sidicks said:
Derek Smith said:
The LibDems have always been a bit canny when chasing seats. They tend to concentrate on those they think they stand a chance at. Regardless of the whys, they got more seats.
I don't think their vote went down by millions. I haven't looked it up, and stand to be corrected, but I think their vote was about 2.5m in 2015.
The Lib Dems had over 6.8m votes in 2010, this fell to 2.4m in 2015 and then fell further still in 2017 (albeit by only 30k).I don't think their vote went down by millions. I haven't looked it up, and stand to be corrected, but I think their vote was about 2.5m in 2015.
Derek Smith said:
The lying, by all parties on all sides, is one thing, but the LibDems chased the youth vote in 2010 and then abandoned it. That was both stupid and self destructive.
I'm not sure what you mean by labour lying on the same topic. To my memory, the promise was to cut tuition fees and there was some waffle about it not being done immediately.
Your memory fails you. An explicit commitment to remove fees (immediately, from memory) in the manifesto and then in addition, the thinly-veiled bribe regarding existing debt alluded to in the pre election campaigning.I'm not sure what you mean by labour lying on the same topic. To my memory, the promise was to cut tuition fees and there was some waffle about it not being done immediately.
Derek Smith said:
My feeling is that after the LD disaster they would have come through on that. Remember that the imposition of fees by Cameron brought in no money. Indeed, the suggestion is that in the long term it will cost.
Who has made this suggestion and on what basis?Derek Smith said:
Reducing levels to the pre Cameron days would have been more or more or less self funding, but the remaining third would cost.
Eh?Derek Smith said:
The LDs were within a few % of labour in the 2010 election. Indeed, labour could have got a majority if they had entered into a coalition with them. Politics and what ifs, eh? If the other Milliband had been elected, labour would have probably gained a majority in 2017, and maybe even 2015.
23% v 29% with the Tories on 36.1%Derek Smith said:
Well, there's a first. Sidekicks supporting, all be it only most, of my points. I'm nervous.
Getting my name right, just once, would be appreciated.Derek Smith said:
Just to clear up the points where you aren't agreeing: I've just looked it up and Corbyn said that they would not be able cut the fees immediately and some students might have to pay but would be reimbursed. So not immediately.
The manifesto is quite clear:"Labour will reintroduce maintenance grants for university students, and we will abolish university tuition fees".
it doesn't say anything about not being able to do it immediately.
Derek Smith said:
Further, Corbyn did not say, suggest or promise to reimburse those who have already paid. An internet search revealed that this has been covered on these very forums, and an actual quote from the man himself. Have a Google.
Did not suggest? 
Seriously, if that's what you think then you didn't Google very hard. It's been discussed numerous times on this forum too.
He didn't explicitly say he would cancel existing debt, but he made numerous insinuations that he would do just that. So much so that post election he had to do some serious backtracking. I'm amazed you've not seen it discussed on here previously.
Derek Smith said:
There have been a number of financial reports which supported that the increase in fees (from those imposed by labour) would bring in no money, due in part to the number of graduates who would not be able to repay in time. Again, it is all on the internet and available to anyone who is intelligent enough to use Google.
So you looked up and discovered that the LDs were just a few % below labour in 2010. You should have accepted what I posted. It would have given you more time to look up the costs of the increase in uni fees. It is fairly basic maths and some posters on here predicted that it would not make money.
Indeed:So you looked up and discovered that the LDs were just a few % below labour in 2010. You should have accepted what I posted. It would have given you more time to look up the costs of the increase in uni fees. It is fairly basic maths and some posters on here predicted that it would not make money.
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-netwo...
"So, how much money did it save the government to increase the fee cap to £9,000 per year? Not as much as you might think. In fact, recently published IFS figures estimate the total saving to the taxpayer of the reforms was around £760m. While that is a substantial amount of money, this represents just a 12% taxpayer saving on the previous system."
https://fullfact.org/education/have-governments-tu...
"It's probably too early to tell how much, if anything, the government is saving"
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 31st August 20:20
sidicks said:
Indeed:
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-netwo...
"So, how much money did it save the government to increase the fee cap to £9,000 per year? Not as much as you might think. In fact, recently published IFS figures estimate the total saving to the taxpayer of the reforms was around £760m. While that is a substantial amount of money, this represents just a 12% taxpayer saving on the previous system."
https://fullfact.org/education/have-governments-tu...
"It's probably too early to tell how much, if anything, the government is saving"
By indeed, I assume you are suggesting you are agreeing with me and that any savings are minuscule at best. You are not. I suggest you read what I post with more care and reply against what I actually suggested. Go on; change the habit of a lifetime. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-netwo...
"So, how much money did it save the government to increase the fee cap to £9,000 per year? Not as much as you might think. In fact, recently published IFS figures estimate the total saving to the taxpayer of the reforms was around £760m. While that is a substantial amount of money, this represents just a 12% taxpayer saving on the previous system."
https://fullfact.org/education/have-governments-tu...
"It's probably too early to tell how much, if anything, the government is saving"
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 31st August 20:20
Derek Smith said:
By indeed, I assume you are suggesting you are agreeing with me and that any savings are minuscule at best. You are not. I suggest you read what I post with more care and reply against what I actually suggested. Go on; change the habit of a lifetime.
£760m is certainly not 'no money' and is certainly not 'miniscule', but of course it could be more or less.If you read (and understand) the IFS paper you will also note that they have used (very) conservative assumptions for future government borrowing rates, which make a significant difference to the projected savings.
You also ignore that circa £6k per student increase in resources available to Universities under the new system,
Another significant saving, not included in your numbers.
HTH
You also conveniently forgot to respond to the parts of my post on the other information you were incorrect about. I wonder why!
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 31st August 21:05
sidicks said:
Derek Smith said:
By indeed, I assume you are suggesting you are agreeing with me and that any savings are minuscule at best. You are not. I suggest you read what I post with more care and reply against what I actually suggested. Go on; change the habit of a lifetime.
£760m is certainly not 'no money' and is certainly not 'miniscule', but of course it could be more or less.If you read (and understand) the IFS paper you will also note that they have used (very) conservative assumptions for future government borrowing rates, which make a significant difference to the projected savings.
You also ignore that circa £6k per student increase in resources available to Universities under the new system,
Another significant saving, not included in your numbers.
HTH
You also conveniently forgot to respond to the parts of my post on the other information you were incorrect about. I wonder why!
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 31st August 21:05
I left the argument about Corbyn. The PH thread goes on and on and if you want to discuss it, that would be the proper thread. There is no definitive answer apart from there being no promise to wipe out the debt in the manifesto.
As for this post of yours, you either haven't grasped that you are not arguing about what I posted or else you are being deliberately obtuse. I was clear enough. Have another read and then come back to me on any criticisms of my post.
Sticking to what I posted, the figures did not take into account the fact that the debt was sold on, and it would have been at a loss. But then, the figures were not published at the time and Private Eye couldn't get them. It may have been released since, but I've lost a bit of interest as I already know it was my money that they are wasting. If they didn't waste it all on that, they'd find some other pointless money pit. However, there is obviously no way that the debt was sold on at a profit.
You've done this sort of thing before and it means that it is pointless arguing with you. Read what I posted. Reply to what I posted.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff