Boris at it again and the contest to replace the lying c***

[Paddingtonwolf]

By the way, linking public spending rises solely to a population rise of approximately eight per cent is complete and utter bollocks.

 

[Papper]

By the way, linking public spending rises solely to a population rise of approximately eight per cent is complete and utter bollocks.

Okay - I'll narrow it down to spending on pensions, health and education.

There was a 104% increase between 2010 (320 billion) and 2000 (157 billion) given a rise in population of 4 million compared to 29% increase between 2020 (414 billion) and 2010 (320 billion) with a population rise of 4 million.

By my estimate that leaves us appx £200 billion short on pensions, health and education when in comparison total taxes raised in 2020 are expected to be £255 billion.

Bare in mind 20% of all taxes raised per annum go on servicing the interest on national debt.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The reason spending went up had bugger all to do with population rise. It had everything to do with a labour government in power. And that isn't a necessarily bad thing, its a philosophy difference. So to then extrapolate that into the austerity decade of conservative power is a complete nonsense.

Your estimates are built on foundations of sand as an argument.

 

[Papper]

The reason spending went up had bugger all to do with population rise. It had everything to do with a labour government in power. And that isn't a necessarily bad thing, its a philosophy difference. So to then extrapolate that into the austerity decade of conservative power is a complete nonsense.

Your estimates are built on foundations of sand as an argument.

Okaaaaaaaaay. Spending went up when it didnt really need to do but it needs to now.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It went up between 2000-2010. It didn't under the current administration. They have offered £13.8bn extra this week as an obvious electoral easter egg while knowing full well it will never happen.

None of the above points have ANYTHING to do with population. Your argument was just not making any sense whatsoever.

 

[Papper]

It went up between 2000-2010. It didn't under the current administration.

Yes, exactly. That's why I called out the 'ending austerity' as absolute bullshit. If it's not due to population growth why is there a need to spend more on health, eduation and pensions and on what basis should it be calculated?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Because the rise in the Labour decade was correcting a previous stage of austerity during the end of the Thatcher and Major administrations.

It is a standard correction that goes on in this country, and there is at least 70 years of data to spot it. Labour in power, spending goes up, taxation goes up. Conservatives in power, the reverse happens.

None of this has anything to do with population growth.

 

[Papper]

Because the rise in the Labour decade was correcting a previous stage of austerity during the end of the Thatcher and Major administrations.

It is a standard correction that goes on in this country, and there is at least 70 years of data to spot it. Labour in power, spending goes up, taxation goes up. Conservatives in power, the reverse happens.

None of this has anything to do with population growth.

This interests me - they seem a fair bunch. Not good reading but they give two forecasts (inflation and population growth and also percentage of GDP)

https://neweconomics.org/2019/09/it-will-take-up-to-11-years-for-the-government-to-reverse-austerity

"The analysis shows that it will take almost a full parliament to reverse austerity in real terms (just taking into account inflation). Taking into account inflation and population growth means a full reversal will take 6 years. And to fully reverse the impacts of austerity as a percentage of GDP will take 11 years"

 

[Kenny]

Amber Rudd quits the cabinet

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Looks like Rudd is quitting the Tories and will stand as an Independent as and when we get a GE.

Too late I'm afraid, she handed her dignity in a few weeks ago. She'll also lose if she stays in the same constituency, she's already got a tiny majority.

 

[Kenny]

Surrendered the whip. Does that mean she is effectively an independent MP now and Bozzer has lost another number in his minority Government?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Correct.

 

[Kenny]

Top lolz.

 

[Tony Towner]

YouGov for the Sunday Times
(fieldwork Thurs/Fri)

Con 35% (-)
Lab 21% (-4)
LDem 19% (+3)
Brexit 12% (+1)

 

[Kenny]

More top lolz!

 

[Tredman]

Perhaps more relevant

#Excl
Westminster voting intention:
"A General Election is held before the 31st of October 2019, and Brexit has not been delivered":

CON: 30%
LAB: 27%
LDEM: 21%
BREX: 14%
GRN: 3%

via @ComRes, 04 - 06 Sep
https://t.co/prvtajnXc4 https://t.co/LZH0nMCSf2

 

[Tredman]

And

 

[Tony Towner]

The really interesting poll would be one which removed the Brexit Party based on them supporting Cons with No Deal.

 

[darlowolf64]

And

Just in England I guess. So Wales and Scotland would belong to Plaid Cymru and the SNP

 

[Deleted Cyber]

"makes him look like"... Maybe because he IS a fucking idiot

Boris is many things.

He is not, however, an idiot. He has some cunning there and has his agenda that is not always as visible as you think.