Jump to content

General Election 2017


ender4

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

DBkjxHKXcAE_rKk.jpg

She just can't answer a question. Can't even bring herself to directly defend the mayor of her capital city.

She did manage to say he's doing an excellent job, to be fair.  Of course it was required and anything less would be the most damaging and divisive thing that even the tory press would criticise her for, but she said it.

As for not answering a question, again, that is unfair.  She's been very clear.  I know this, because she told me.  Many, many times.  Strong and stable has now gone, and "I'm very clear" has replaced it.  What is your favourite colour, Theresa?  I'm very clear...burble, burble, squirrel, Andromeda galaxy, lettuce, clear, clear, next?"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

0.045 voter power in Sutton Codlfield. "Ultra Safe".

The average UK voter has 6.67 times more power than voters in Sutton Coldfield.

How depressing.
No wonder people can't be arsed to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't pick my favourite thing about it.

It might be that none of the numbers are adjusted for inflation (which, as you'd expect, tend to put Labour considerably ahead in terms of spending on the NHS and even further in education spending).

It might be that some of the numbers are just absolutely wrong - the 2.9tn GDP in 2016 appears to be in dollars, not pounds, whether that's ignorance or deceit, I'll leave for individuals to decide.

Or maybe it's holding up the 2010 deficit as an example of Labour's recklessness with the economy, hoping people don't pay attention to its proximity to a global **** meltdown. Labour's  typical deficit was under 20 billion http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis

It's a rather 1 dimensional propaganda piece, that seems to rely on people taking the numbers at face value without applying any critical thinking. The tragic thing is that it's the kind of thing that'll get thousands of likes and shares on Facebook with people taking it at face value.

Edited by Davkaus
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is any that of in line with line inflation? Below? Above?

Is the unemployment rate taking into account taking into account zero-hours contracts?

edit: beat me to it

Edited by StefanAVFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

I can't pick my favourite thing about it.

It might be that none of the numbers are adjusted for inflation (which, as you'd expect, tend to put Labour considerably ahead in terms of spending on the NHS and even further in education spending).

It might be that some of the numbers are just absolutely wrong - the 2.9tn GDP in 2016 appears to be in dollars, not pounds, whether that's ignorance or deceit, I'll leave for individuals to decide.

Or maybe it's holding up the 2010 deficit as an example of Labour's recklessness with the economy, hoping people don't pay attention to its proximity to a global **** meltdown. Labour's  typical deficit was under 20 billion http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis

It's a rather 1 dimensional propaganda piece, that seems to rely on people taking the numbers at face value without applying any critical thinking.

Given the 2.9tn has rather obviously omitted the £ sign, I'd say it's probably not an accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just impressed that in June we already have figures for 2017. Probably put together by the numbers genius Phil 'spreadsheet' Hammond.

To be fair on that list of numbers, the tory symbol appears to be a magic money tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I'm just impressed that in June we already have figures for 2017. Probably put together by the numbers genius Phil 'spreadsheet' Hammond.

To be fair on that list of numbers, the tory symbol appears to be a magic money tree.

You know what a budget is right?  Planned expenditure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a few people sharing it on Facebook so adjusted it for inflation and added a few key indicators. Numbers aren't exact but close enough.

lab2010-con2017.PNG.aba2ba9bcd150e3b87fee12c174c03a5.PNG

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, colhint said:

you Know I have changed my mind. I'm going to vote Labour. After watching Diane Abbots Interview on sky, there is no better person in the country to be home secretary

Good man. It's good to see some perspective. You know, Abbott being crap at interviews against dangerous austerity, cuts to everything but top rate tax etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

It's a rather 1 dimensional propaganda piece, that seems to rely on people taking the numbers at face value without applying any critical thinking. The tragic thing is that it's the kind of thing that'll get thousands of likes and shares on Facebook with people taking it at face value.

Indeed.

Just looking at the education numbers, though, it's striking that there has been a nominal cut in spending of 2.6% in whatever period the tables are supposed to represent (whether it's calendar or financial years).

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â